linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 3/5] IIO: Ingenic JZ47xx: Add touchscreen mode.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:31:54 +0200
From:   Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>
To:     Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 3/5] IIO: Ingenic JZ47xx: Add touchscreen mode.

Hi Ezequiel,

On 2020-04-19 14:54, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 18:54, Andy Shevchenko 
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:45 AM Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net> 
>> wrote:
>> > Le sam. 18 avril 2020 à 0:42, Andy Shevchenko
>> > <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> a écrit :
>> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:18 AM Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>  Le sam. 18 avril 2020 à 0:13, Andy Shevchenko
>> > >>  <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> a écrit :
>> > >>  > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:05 AM Paul Cercueil
>> > >> <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> > >>  > wrote:
>> > >>  >>  Le ven. 17 avril 2020 à 23:59, Andy Shevchenko
>> > >>  >>  <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> a écrit :
>> > >>  >>  > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:21 PM Artur Rojek
>> > >>  >> <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>
>> > >>  >>  > wrote:
>> > >>  >
>> > >>  > ...
>> > >>  >
>> > >>  >>  >>  +       irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> > >>  >>  >
>> > >>  >>  > Before it worked w/o IRQ, here is a regression you introduced.
>> > >>  >>
>> > >>  >>  Before it simply did not need the IRQ, which is provided by the
>> > >>  >>  devicetree anyway. No regression here.
>> > >>  >
>> > >>  > Does it work without IRQ? Or it was a dead code till now?
>> > >>  > For me it's clear regression. Otherwise something is really wrong
>> > >> in a
>> > >>  > process of development of this driver.
>> > >>
>> > >>  Nothing wrong here. The IRQ was not used by the driver for the
>> > >>  functionality it provided before. It is required now to support the
>> > >>  touchscreen channels.
>> > >
>> > > This is exactly what's wrong.
>> > > Previous DTS for my (hypothetical) case has no IRQ defined. Everything
>> > > works, right?
>> > > Now, due to this change it breaks my setup. Don't you see the problem?
>> >
>> > The IRQ has been provided by every concerned DTS file since the
>> > introduction of this driver and the related bindings, even though it
>> > was not used by the driver.
>> 
>> Can you speak for all possible DTSs/DTBs in the wild?
>> Okay, in any case it will be problem of maintainers and yours if
>> somebody complains.
>> I'm not going to push this anyway -- your choice.
>> 
>> But I see a (potential) regression.
>> 
> 
> So, there are a few things to keep in mind here.
> 
> Let's abstract ourselves from this specific driver
> for a minute.
> 
> First, and just as Andy pointed out, we can never be fully
> sure about DTBs out there. These could be out of tree,
> so out of our control. By introducing a new requirement
> we break them, which may be seen as a regression.
> 
> Second, the interrupt is not required as per
> current mainline bindings/iio/adc/ingenic,adc.txt,
> so it is perfectly legal for users to not have an interrupt
> specified.
> 
> Now, back to this case, I think we can get away with this
> change, provided this hardware is not that widespread
> among developers/users that follow upstream closely.
> 
> I suspect anyone developing a serious platform
> with this SoC is most likely using some vendor kernel.
> 
> If that is not the case, i.e. if you have users _actually_
> using this upstream driver, then we should consider
> making the interrupt optional instead of required.
> 
> Or we can also just break it and hope nobody
> complaints.
> 
> BTW, this series looks great and I'm happy
> to see JZ47xx activity :-)
> 
> Arthur: perhaps you can consider converting the txt dt binding
> to yaml?
Sure, it will come with v6 of this patchset.
And this time I'll make the `interrupts` property required :-)

- Artur
> 
> Cheers,
> Ezequiel