linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip: Add Qualcomm MPM controller driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87lf16m3ua.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:42:53 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Maulik Shah <quic_mkshah@...cinc.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip: Add Qualcomm MPM controller driver

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 02:31:52 +0000,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> + Maulik
> 
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 03:24:39PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > @@ -430,6 +430,14 @@ config QCOM_PDC
> > > > >  	  Power Domain Controller driver to manage and configure wakeup
> > > > >  	  IRQs for Qualcomm Technologies Inc (QTI) mobile chips.
> > > > >  
> > > > > +config QCOM_MPM
> > > > > +	bool "QCOM MPM"
> > > > 
> > > > Can't be built as a module?
> > > 
> > > The driver is implemented as a builtin_platform_driver().
> > 
> > This, on its own, shouldn't preclude the driver from being built as a
> > module. However, the config option only allows it to be built in. Why?
> 
> I just tried to build it as a module, and it seems that "irq_to_desc" is
> only available for built-in build.

Yet another thing that you should not be using. The irqdomain code
gives you everything you need without having to resort to the
internals of the core IRQ infrastructure.

> > Furthermore, why would you look up anywhere other than the wake-up
> > domain? My impression was that only these interrupts would require
> > being re-triggered.
> 
> Both domains have MPM pins that could wake up system.

Then why do you need two domains?

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.