linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: mt6360: Remove handle_post

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: <8fa489a0-7672-cbbd-ec04-32803ca69084@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:22:29 +0200
From:   Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To:     Gene Chen <gene.chen.richtek@...il.com>, lee.jones@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gene_chen@...htek.com, shufan_lee@...htek.com,
        cy_huang@...htek.com, benjamin.chao@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: mt6360: Remove handle_post_irq callback function



On 07/07/2020 12:30, Gene Chen wrote:
> From: Gene Chen <gene_chen@...htek.com>
> 
> Remove handle_post_irq which is used to retrigger irq.
> Set irq level low trigger to keep irq always be handled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@...htek.com>
> ---
>   drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c  | 25 ++++++++-----------------
>   include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h |  6 +++---
>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> index 5dfc13e..2dd5918 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> @@ -208,24 +208,16 @@ static const struct regmap_irq mt6360_irqs[] =  {
>   	REGMAP_IRQ_REG_LINE(MT6360_LDO7_PGB_EVT, 8),
>   };
>   
> -static int mt6360_pmu_handle_post_irq(void *irq_drv_data)
> -{
> -	struct mt6360_data *data = irq_drv_data;
> -
> -	return regmap_update_bits(data->regmap,
> -		MT6360_PMU_IRQ_SET, MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG, MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG);
> -}
> -
> -static struct regmap_irq_chip mt6360_irq_chip = {
> +static const struct regmap_irq_chip mt6360_irq_chip = {
> +	.name = "mt6360_irqs",
>   	.irqs = mt6360_irqs,
>   	.num_irqs = ARRAY_SIZE(mt6360_irqs),
> -	.num_regs = MT6360_PMU_IRQ_REGNUM,
> -	.mask_base = MT6360_PMU_CHG_MASK1,
> -	.status_base = MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ1,
> -	.ack_base = MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ1,
> +	.num_regs = MT6360_IRQ_REGNUM,
> +	.mask_base = MT6360_REG_PMU_CHGMASK1,
> +	.status_base = MT6360_REG_PMU_CHGIRQ1,
> +	.ack_base = MT6360_REG_PMU_CHGIRQ1,

Non relevant patches for the commit. Please drop this.

>   	.init_ack_masked = true,
>   	.use_ack = true,
> -	.handle_post_irq = mt6360_pmu_handle_post_irq,
>   };
>   
>   static const struct regmap_config mt6360_pmu_regmap_config = {
> @@ -339,10 +331,9 @@ static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>   		return -ENODEV;
>   	}
>   
> -	mt6360_irq_chip.irq_drv_data = data;
>   	ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&client->dev, data->regmap, client->irq,
> -				       IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING, 0,
> -				       &mt6360_irq_chip, &data->irq_data);
> +				       IRQF_ONESHOT, 0, &mt6360_irq_chip,

 From what I see IRQF_ONESHOT is set implicitly in regmap_add_irq_chip_fwnode. 
Actually I think what you want to add is IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW.

> +				       &data->irq_data);
>   	if (ret) {
>   		dev_err(&client->dev, "Failed to add Regmap IRQ Chip\n");
>   		return ret;
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> index 76077e4..9fc6718 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ struct mt6360_data {
>   #define MT6360_PMU_SPARE2			(0xA0)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_SPARE3			(0xB0)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_SPARE4			(0xC0)
> -#define MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ1			(0xD0)
> +#define MT6360_REG_PMU_CHGIRQ1			(0xD0)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ2			(0xD1)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ3			(0xD2)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ4			(0xD3)
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ struct mt6360_data {
>   #define MT6360_PMU_BUCK2_STAT			(0xED)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_LDO_STAT1			(0xEE)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_LDO_STAT2			(0xEF)
> -#define MT6360_PMU_CHG_MASK1			(0xF0)
> +#define MT6360_REG_PMU_CHGMASK1			(0xF0)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_CHG_MASK2			(0xF1)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_CHG_MASK3			(0xF2)
>   #define MT6360_PMU_CHG_MASK4			(0xF3)
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ struct mt6360_data {
>   #define MT6360_PMU_MAXREG			(MT6360_PMU_LDO_MASK2)
>   
>   /* MT6360_PMU_IRQ_SET */
> -#define MT6360_PMU_IRQ_REGNUM	(MT6360_PMU_LDO_IRQ2 - MT6360_PMU_CHG_IRQ1 + 1)

Not relevant for the commit. But why did you use this strange computation in the 
first place?

> +#define MT6360_IRQ_REGNUM	16
>   #define MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG	BIT(2)
>   
>   #define CHIP_VEN_MASK				(0xF0)
>