linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] irqchip: qcom-pdc: Fix phantom irq when changing between rising/falling

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:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:55:51 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
        Srinivas Ramana <sramana@...eaurora.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] irqchip: qcom-pdc: Fix phantom irq when changing
 between rising/falling

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:02 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> > We have a problem if we use gpio-keys and configure wakeups such that
> > we only want one edge to wake us up.  AKA:
> >   wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>;
> >   wakeup-source;
>
> I would need Marc's ACK to apply this with the other patches
> to the pinctrl tree, but I can't really see if maybe it is OK to
> apply it separately?

I'll make an explicit note after the cut in the patch, but to also
respond here: we can apply this patch on its own.  The only reason I
sent as one series is because they address similar issues, this patch
stands on its own.  Patch #3 needs #2 but patch #2/#3 don't need patch
#1.

> Also are these patches supposed to all go in as fixes or
> for v5.11?

Wherever it makes sense.

-Doug