linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] regmap-irq: Add get_irq_reg to support unusual register layouts

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: <YqN1iTyyiRx4/CMf@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:47:05 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>
Cc:     linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, wens@...e.org, jic23@...nel.org,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, sre@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, lars@...afoo.de, rafael@...nel.org,
        quic_gurus@...cinc.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] regmap-irq: Add get_irq_reg to support unusual
 register layouts

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:40:20PM +0100, Aidan MacDonald wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 04:53:09PM +0100, Aidan MacDonald wrote:

> >> -	if (!chip->sub_reg_offsets || !chip->not_fixed_stride) {
> >> +	if (chip->get_irq_reg) {
> >> +		reg = chip->get_irq_reg(base_reg, i);
> >> +	} else if (!chip->sub_reg_offsets || !chip->not_fixed_stride) {

> > It seems like it would be cleaner and clearer to refactor things so that
> > we always have a get_irq_reg() with standard chips getting given a
> > default implementation which implements the current behaviour.

> I don't think that is a good way to clean things up. I only intended
> get_irq_reg() to be a quick hack to solve a problem; in my opinion it
> would be a poor abstraction to base the API around.

I'm not sure why you are proposing this change if you are so convinced
it's a bad idea.  If you want to propose a different rework go ahead,
but adding the new operation without any form of factoring out is an
issue.  At first glance your suggestion looked plausible.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)