linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] gpio: add support for the sl28cpld GPIO controller

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:   Sat, 6 Jun 2020 00:19:10 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] gpio: add support for the sl28cpld GPIO controller

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:44 PM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:
> Am 2020-06-05 15:15, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 02:42:53PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> >> Am 2020-06-05 14:00, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:14 AM Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:

...

> >> > > +       if (irq_support &&
> >> >
> >> > Why do you need this flag? Can't simple IRQ number be sufficient?
> >>
> >> I want to make sure, the is no misconfiguration. Eg. only GPIO
> >> flavors which has irq_support set, have the additional interrupt
> >> registers.
> >
> > In gpio-dwapb, for example, we simple check two things: a) hardware
> > limitation
> > (if IRQ is assigned to a proper port) and b) if there is any IRQ comes
> > from DT,
> > ACPI, etc.
>
> I can't follow you here. irq_support is like your (a); or the
> "pp->idx == 0" in your example.

And you have type already. Why do you need to duplicate it? Moreover,
is it protection from wrong type to have interrupts?

You can move this all stuff under corresponding switch-case.

> >> > > +           device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev,
> >> > > "interrupt-controller")) {
> >> > > +               irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> > > +               if (irq < 0)
> >> > > +                       return irq;
> >> > > +
> >> > > +               ret = sl28cpld_gpio_irq_init(&pdev->dev, gpio, regmap,
> >> > > +                                            base, irq);
> >> > > +               if (ret)
> >> > > +                       return ret;
> >> > > +
> >> > > +               config.irq_domain =
> >> > > regmap_irq_get_domain(gpio->irq_data);


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko