linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 2/3] docs: firmware-guide: ACPI: Add named interrupt doc

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: <DM5PR12MB18501911339A0274CBE20BB4C05B9@DM5PR12MB1850.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:50:22 +0000
From:   Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/3] docs: firmware-guide: ACPI: Add named interrupt
 doc

> > Added details and example for named interrupts in the ACPI table.
> 
> Added details and example for --> Add a detailed example of the
> 
> ...
> 
> > +            Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh, Exclusive) {
> > +                0x20,
> 
> I would think of splitting this to two separate entries in between of which the
> GpioInt() resource is provided. It will explicitly show that you describe the case
> only for Interrupt(). Something like
> 
>   Interrupt (...) { 0x20 }
>   GpioInt(...) { ... }
>   Interrupt (...) { 0x24 }
> 
> But it's up to you.
Instead, would it be good to add a statement mentioning this explicitly. Something 
like -

    The interrupt name 'default' will correspond to 0x20 in Interrupt()
    resource and 'alert' to 0x24. Note that only the Interrupt() resource
    is mapped and not GpioInt() or similar.

I feel mixing these in the example would add a bit of confusion to the reader.

Thanks,
Akhil