linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] i2c: designware: set pinctrl recovery information from device pinctrl

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: <Y5r2pZhe17dVBMme@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:27:49 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@...zon.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
        jsd@...ihalf.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dwmw@...zon.co.uk, benh@...zon.com,
        ronenk@...zon.com, talel@...zon.com, jonnyc@...zon.com,
        hanochu@...zon.com, farbere@...zon.com, itamark@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] i2c: designware: set pinctrl recovery information
 from device pinctrl

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:15:35AM +0200, Hawa, Hanna wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 6:09 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > +     if (dev->dev->pins && dev->dev->pins->p)
> > > +             rinfo->pinctrl = dev->dev->pins->p;
> > Hmm... I don't see how this field is being used.
> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> This field is used in i2c_generic_scl_recovery(), if it's not NULL then the
> flow will set the state to GPIO before running the recovery mechanism.
>         if (bri->pinctrl)
>                 pinctrl_select_state(bri->pinctrl, bri->pins_gpio);

OK, but why that function doesn't use the dev->pins->p if it's defined?
(As a fallback when rinfo->pinctrl is NULL.)

Wolfram?

Hanna, it seems you missed I²C maintainer to Cc...

...

> I saw that that the change failed in complication for SPARC architecture, as
> the pins field is wraparound with CONFIG_PINCTRL in device struct. I though
> on two options to solve the compilation error, first by adding wraparound of
> CONFIG_PINCTRL when accessing the pins field. And the second option is to
> add get function in pinctrl/devinfo.h file, which return the pins field, or
> NULL in case the PINCTRL is not defined. Which option you think we can go
> with?

Getter with a stub sounds better to me, so you won't access some device core
fields.

Linus, what do you think about all these (including previous paragraph)?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko