linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] Documentation: add BCM6328 pincontroller binding documentation

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, 2 Mar 2021 17:53:56 +0100
From:   Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>,
        Necip Fazil Yildiran <fazilyildiran@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] Documentation: add BCM6328 pincontroller binding
 documentation

Hi Linus,

I think it's better if we leave the interrupts out for now.
It's not critical and it can be added later.

Best regards,
Álvaro.

El 02/03/2021 a las 16:23, Linus Walleij escribió:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 3:57 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:42 PM Álvaro Fernández Rojas
>> <noltari@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Add binding documentation for the pincontrol core found in BCM6328 SoCs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>
>> (...)
>>> +  interrupts-extended:
>>> +    description:
>>> +      One interrupt per each of the 4 GPIO ports supported by the controller,
>>> +      sorted by port number ascending order.
>>> +    minItems: 4
>>> +    maxItems: 4
>>
>> I don't know if this is advisable, there are different ways
>> of specifying interrupts so this may become ambiguous,
>> I think Rob will know how/if to do this though.
> 
> After reading the code I conclude this gpiochip is hierarchical so this should
> just be dropped, and we only need interrupt-parent assigned. The
> driver will know the hardware offsets between the interrupt parent
> and the GPIO block, this is generally the case for
> hierarchical interrupt controllers.
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>