linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 03/17] pinctrl: cy8c95x0: Allow most of the registers to be cached

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:03:38 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/17] pinctrl: cy8c95x0: Allow most of the registers
 to be cached

On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:30 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 2:57 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 9:36 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's unclear why many of static registers were marked as volatile.
> > >
> > > the static (yeah, forgot it)
> > >
> > > > They are pretty much bidirectional and static in a sense that
> > > > written value is kept there until a new write or chip reset.
> > > > Drop those registers from the list to allow them to be cached.
> > >
> > > This patch is not correct due to indexing access. It's sneaked since I
> > > forgot I added it into my main repo. The proper approach should be to
> > > create virtual registers and decode them before use. This allows to
> > > cache all ports and as a benefit to debug print all port actual
> > > statuses.
> >
> > To be clear: With this one removed from the bunch the rest can be applied w.o.
> > any change.
>
> I'll give Patrick a day or two to test/review and then I'll just apply
> them all except this one, they are all pretty self-evident except ACPI
> things which have obviously been tested on hardware so from my
> point of view it's good to merge.

I applied all patches now except this one (3/17), some patches needed
a bit of fuzzing because other stuff in my tree, so please check the
result once it lands in linux-next.

Yours,
Linus Walleij