linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] RFC: drivers: gpio: helper for generic pin IRQ handling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VfOjb4Rfo9yPmwEYUDbaPXNjfGs6goM27ZnLdAMtiU+jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:38:37 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        joyce.ooi@...el.com, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Hoan Tran <hoan@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>, orsonzhai@...il.com,
        baolin.wang7@...il.com, zhang.lyra@...il.com,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] RFC: drivers: gpio: helper for generic pin IRQ handling

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:14 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> <info@...ux.net> wrote:
> >
> > Many gpio drivers already use gpiolib's builtin irqchip handling
> > (CONFIG_GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP), but still has some boilerplate for retrieving
> > the actual Linux IRQ number and calling into the generic handler.
> > That boilerplate can be reduced by moving that into a helper function.
> >
> > This is an RFC patch to outline how that could be done. Note: it's
> > completely untested yet.
> >
> > Several drivers still have their completely IRQ own implementation and
> > thus can't be converted yet. Some of them perhaps could be changed to
> > store their irq domain in the struct gpio, so the new helper could
> > also be used for those.
> >
> > Having all GPIO drivers doing their IRQ management entirely through the
> > GPIO subsystem (eg. never calling generic_handle_irq() and using the builtin
> > IRQ handling) would also allow a more direct (eg. callback-based) pin change
> > notification for GPIO consumers, that doesn't involve registering them as
> > generic IRQ handlers.
> >
> > Further reduction of boilerplate could be achieved by additional helpers
> > for common patterns like for_each_set_bit() loops on irq masks.
>
> Have you able to test them all?
> As the PCA953x case showed us this is not so simple, besides the name
> which sucks — we don't *raise* and IRQ we *handle* it.
>
> NAK.

To be on constructive side what I think can help here:
- split patch on per driver basis (and first patch is a simple
introduction of new API)
- rename function
- in each new per-driver patch explain what is the difference in behaviour
- test as many as you can and explain in a cover letter what has been
done and what are the expectations on the ones that you weren't able
to test.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko