[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANBLGczTnf1UrRt=d-czaG-CE=Rwb1x6MV4c97ia+P3u5Mt8Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 13:35:23 +0100
From: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@...ive.com>,
Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Michael Zhu <michael.zhu@...rfivetech.com>,
Fu Wei <tekkamanninja@...il.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Huan Feng <huan.feng@...rfivetech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/16] pinctrl: starfive: Add pinctrl driver for
StarFive SoCs
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 at 10:13, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 21:02, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:50 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk> wrote:
>
> > > > + switch (trigger) {
>
> > > > + default:
> > >
> > > > + irq_set_handler_locked(d, handle_bad_irq);
> > >
> > > Why? You have it already in ->probe(), what's the point?
> >
> > So last time you asked about this, I explained a situation where
> > userspace first grabs a GPIO, set the interrupt to edge triggered, and
> > then later loads a driver that requests an unsupported IRQ type.
>
> I didn't get this scenario. Is it real?
No, it's totally made up, but I mean we even have tools like fuzzing
to help us find bugs that would never happen in real use cases.
> > Then
> > I'd like to set the handler back to handle_bad_irq so we don't get
> > weird interrupts, but maybe now you know a reason why that doesn't
> > matter or can't happen?
>
> In ->probe() you set _default_ handler to bad(), what do you mean by
> 'set the handler back to bad()'? How is it otherwise if you free an
> interrupt?
It might not be, but when not sure I thought it better to error on the
safe side.
> So, please elaborate with call traces what the scenario / use case you
> are talking about. If it's true what you are saying, we have a
> situation (plenty of GPIO drivers don't do what you are suggesting
> here).
>
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
>
> ...
>
> > > > + ret = reset_control_deassert(rst);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "could not deassert resetd\n");
> > >
> > > > + ret = devm_pinctrl_register_and_init(dev, &starfive_desc, sfp, &sfp->pctl);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > >
> > > I don't see who will assert reset here.
> >
> > No, so originally this driver would first assert and then deassert
> > reset. I decided against that because in all likelyhood earlier boot
> > stages would have set pinmux up for a serial port, and we don't want
> > to interrupt the serial debug output. The only reason I make sure the
> > reset line is deasserted is in case someone makes a really minimal
> > bootloader that just does the absolute minimal to load a Linux kernel
> > and doesn't even log any anything.
> >
> > By the same token we also don't want to assert reset on error in case
> > it resets pin muxing for the the serial line that was supposed to log
> > the error.
>
> Perhaps comment in the code explaining this?
Sure.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists