linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: mfd: correct interrupt flags in examples

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]

Message-ID: <20200929095307.GB11333@kozik-lap>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:53:07 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>,
        Robert Jones <rjones@...eworks.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-power@...rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: mfd: correct interrupt flags in examples

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:46:57AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> > GPIO_ACTIVE_x flags are not correct in the context of interrupt flags.
> > These are simple defines so they could be used in DTS but they will not
> > have the same meaning:
> > 1. GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH = 0 = IRQ_TYPE_NONE
> > 2. GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW  = 1 = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING
> > 
> > Correct the interrupt flags, assuming the author of the code wanted same
> > logical behavior behind the name "ACTIVE_xxx", this is:
> >   ACTIVE_LOW => IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> > Acked-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> # for BD70528
> > Acked-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com> # for gateworks-gsc.yaml
> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes since v1:
> > 1. Add acks
> 
> FYI, this should not bump the patch version.

Yes, that was my mistake. I kept this one with multiple other similar
patches and was updating all of them.... but I sent each group
independently at the end so this one did not receive any updates
actually.

Best regards,
Krzysztof