linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] watchdog: s3c2410: Make reset disable optional

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]

Message-ID: <CAPLW+4kd0Woxenf2DUJTRD2zCn9gSg6Wq0Vbt+EjSM5zeTDvHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 22:25:03 +0300
From:   Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Samsung SOC <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] watchdog: s3c2410: Make reset disable optional

On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 at 11:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2021 02:16, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 10/28/21 11:35 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> >> Not all SoCs have AUTOMATIC_WDT_RESET_DISABLE register, examples are
> >> Exynos850 and Exynos9. On such chips reset disable register shouldn't be
> >> accessed. Provide a way to avoid handling that register. This is done by
> >> introducing separate callbacks to driver data structure: one for reset
> >> disable register, and one for mask reset register. Now those callbacks
> >> can be checked and called only when those were set in driver data.
> >>
> >> This commit doesn't bring any functional change to existing devices, but
> >> merely provides an infrastructure for upcoming chips support.
> >>
> >
> > That doesn't explain why the callbacks are needed instead of additional
> > feature flags.
> >
>
> Or why not skipping the disable operations if disable_reg is not provided?
>

Yeah, that was my first thought too :) Then I figured disable_reg is
offset, and 0x0 is a valid offset too. Anyway, I'll rework this patch
using quirks, as discussed above. Will send v2 soon.

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof