linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mfd: arizona: Add support for ACPI enumeration of WM5102 connected over SPI

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:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:38:47 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Christian Hartmann <cornogle@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mfd: arizona: Add support for ACPI enumeration of
 WM5102 connected over SPI

Hi,

On 1/18/21 2:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:13:50PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>> More in general I'm not aware of any (recent-ish) x86 GPIO controllers
>> not being able to do active low interrupts. In theory we could hit this
>> code path on ARM devices using ACPI enumeration, but I don't think it
>> is likely we will see a combination of ARM + ACPI enumeration +
>> WM5102 + GPIO controller not capable of active-low interrupts.
> 
> I've not seen this issue on any ARM based systems.
> 
>> This overriding of the flags definitely is necessary on the Lenovo
>> devices in question. I could add a
>> "if (dmi_name_in_vendors("LENOVO"))" guard around it, but that
>> seems unnecessary.
> 
> Possibly just an update to the comment to make it clear that some
> firmwares might legitimately set the flag
That seems sensible, I will wait a bit to so if you (or someone)
has any more review remarks to this series and then send out
a v4 with the comment updated.

Regards,

Hans