linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow recovery of the initial IRQ by an I2C client device.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 10:47:32 -0800
From:   Jim Broadus <jbroadus@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Allow recovery of the initial IRQ by an I2C client device.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:32 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>
> > > > But I still have the feeling that the problem is not solved at the
> > > > right place. In i2c_new_device() we are storing parts of the fields of
> > > > struct i2c_board_info, and when resetting the irq we are losing
> > > > information. This patch solves that, but I wonder if the IRQ should
> > > > not be 'simply' set in i2c_device_probe(). This means we also need to
> > > > store the .resources of info, but I have a feeling this will be less
> > > > error prone in the future.
> > > >
> > > > But this is just my guts telling me something is not right. I would
> > > > perfectly understand if we want to get this merged ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > So given that the code is correct, this is my:
> > > > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > But at least I have expressed my feelings :)
> > >
> > > Which I can relate to very much. I see the code solves the issue but my
> > > feeling is that we are patching around something which should be handled
> > > differently in general.
> > >
> > > Is somebody willing to research this further?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your input.
> > >
> >
> > I would be willing to have more of a look at it but am slightly
> > nervous I am not right person as all the systems I currently work
> > with are DT based so don't really exemplify the issue at all.
>
> Thank you! Well, I'll be there, too. Discussing, reviewing, testing. And
> if we have Benjamin for that on board as well, then I think we have a
> good start for that task :) Others are more than welcome to join, too,
> of course.
>

I'm also more familiar with device-tree (just came across this on my personal
laptop) but happy to review and test at the risk of learning something.