[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YYKZJiv4SMQxrx7R@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:13:58 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>
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>,
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, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:35:23PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> 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:
...
> > > > > + 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.
With a dead code?
I do not believe there is an issue since. like I said, there are plenty drivers
that don't do what you are suggesting here --> 99.99% you added a dead code.
> > 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).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists