linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] pinctrl: qcom: Don't clear pending interrupts when enabling

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: <CAD=FV=WG5s81mh+S6Fhyz51nsui=EcsAVJd24uChrszKWHzauQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:04:49 -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>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Ramana <sramana@...eaurora.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] pinctrl: qcom: Don't clear pending interrupts when enabling

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:36 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> this is an impressive patch.
>
> We definitely need to touch base with Bjorn on this, preferably also
> Sboyd.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:35 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> > Fixes: 4b7618fdc7e6 ("pinctrl: qcom: Add irq_enable callback for msm gpio")
> > Fixes: 71266d9d3936 ("pinctrl: qcom: Move clearing pending IRQ to .irq_request_resources callback")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>
> Some mechanics:

I just realized that I addressed everyone's comments but yours.  Doh!


> 1. Does this need to go into stable? Or is current (non-urgent) fine? Or fixes
>    for v5.10? I.e. required destination.

It probably ought to go into stable, but I'll leave it up to you which
version of Linux it lands in.  I don't personally know if anyone is
criticall waiting on this to land upstream.  For Chrome OS we're not
desperate for it because we've already landed a temporary revert of
Maulik's previous patch and the extra clearing of the masked
interrupts isn't causing any really visible problems for us.


> 2. If it does, should patches 1-3 also go into stable? And are they
> prerequisites?

Yeah, the last patch requires the previous ones, so they would all
need to go into stable together.

-Doug