linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] I2C IRQ Probe Improvements

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]

Message-ID: <20190611152833.GR28362@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:28:33 +0100
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
CC:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jim Broadus <jbroadus@...il.com>,
        <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] I2C IRQ Probe Improvements

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:16:58PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:31 PM Charles Keepax
> <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series attempts to align as much IRQ handling into the
> > probe path as possible. Note that I don't have a great setup
> > for testing these patches so they are mostly just build tested
> > and need careful review and testing before any of them are
> > merged.
> >
> > The series brings the ACPI path inline with the way the device
> > tree path handles the IRQ entirely at probe time. However,
> > it still leaves any IRQ specified through the board_info as
> > being handled at device time. In that case we need to cache
> > something from the board_info until probe time, which leaves
> > any alternative solution with something basically the same as
> > the current handling although perhaps caching more stuff.
> 
> Hmm, I still haven't pinpointed the issue, but I wanted to give a test
> of the series and I have:
> [    5.511806] i2c_hid i2c-DLL075B:01: HID over i2c has not been
> provided an Int IRQ
> [    5.511825] i2c_hid: probe of i2c-DLL075B:01 failed with error -22
> 
> So it seems that there is something wrong happening when fetching the
> IRQ and providing it to i2c-hid.
> 
> That was on a Dell XPS 9360.
> 
> Bisecting is starting.
> 

I have a sneaking suspision, does this diff fix it:

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c
b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c
index 57be6342ba508..a90b05a269c36 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ int i2c_acpi_get_irq(struct i2c_client *client)
        acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list);

        if (irq == -ENOENT)
-           irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(adev, 0);
+         irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev), 0);

        return irq;
 }

There was some earlier discussion about which device was suitable
for this call.

Thanks,
Charles