linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] SPI: Add SPI driver for Sunplus SP7021

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: <c2006b3f35ce4a2eb56d3dea534a3121@sphcmbx02.sunplus.com.tw>
Date:   Mon, 20 Dec 2021 06:04:39 +0000
From:   Lh Kuo 郭力豪 <lh.Kuo@...plus.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Li-hao Kuo <lhjeff911@...il.com>
CC:     "p.zabel@...gutronix.de" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        "andyshevchenko@...il.com" <andyshevchenko@...il.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wells Lu 呂芳騰 <wells.lu@...plus.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] SPI: Add SPI driver for Sunplus SP7021

Hi Mr. Mark Brown

Thank you for your review.

I will fix it in the next submission

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 1:38 AM
> To: Li-hao Kuo <lhjeff911@...il.com>
> Cc: p.zabel@...gutronix.de; andyshevchenko@...il.com; robh+dt@...nel.org;
> linux-spi@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Wells Lu 呂芳騰
> <wells.lu@...plus.com>; Lh Kuo 郭力豪 <lh.Kuo@...plus.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] SPI: Add SPI driver for Sunplus SP7021
> 
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 05:02:47PM +0800, Li-hao Kuo wrote:
> 
> > +static irqreturn_t sp7021_spi_sla_irq(int irq, void *dev) {
> > +	struct sp7021_spi_ctlr *pspim = dev;
> > +	unsigned int data_status;
> > +
> > +	data_status = readl(pspim->sla_base + SP7021_DATA_RDY_REG);
> > +	writel(data_status | SP7021_SLA_CLR_INT, pspim->sla_base + SP7021_DATA_RDY_REG);
> > +	complete(&pspim->sla_isr);
> > +	return IRQ_NONE;
> > +}
> 
> This will always return IRQ_NONE even if the interrupt actually fired - that should eventually cause
> genirq to complain that there's a problem with the interrupt never being handled I think (though perhaps
> if the interrupt stops asserting it'll pick up on that).  It should return IRQ_HANDLED if there was
> something asserted in SP7021_DATA_RDY_REG.
> 
> Apart from that one thing this all looks good as far as I can see.