linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm/dp: do not complete dp_aux_cmd_fifo

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: <CAE-0n53bREwEMV4aP=ySPuPP8mMbDr=Unbjw_bW0MNN7hTsWRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 15:10:09 -0500
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>, agross@...nel.org,
        airlied@...il.com, andersson@...nel.org, daniel@...ll.ch,
        dianders@...omium.org, robdclark@...il.com, sean@...rly.run,
        vkoul@...nel.org
Cc:     quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com, quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm/dp: do not complete dp_aux_cmd_fifo_tx() if
 irq is not for aux transfer

Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-12-15 10:46:42)
> On 15/12/2022 20:32, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
> >       if (!aux->cmd_busy)
> >               return;
> >
> >       if (aux->native)
> > -             dp_aux_native_handler(aux, isr);
> > +             ret = dp_aux_native_handler(aux, isr);
> >       else
> > -             dp_aux_i2c_handler(aux, isr);
> > +             ret = dp_aux_i2c_handler(aux, isr);
> >
> > -     complete(&aux->comp);
> > +     if (ret == IRQ_HANDLED)
> > +             complete(&aux->comp);
>
> Can you just move the complete() into the individual handling functions?
> Then you won't have to return the error code from dp_aux_*_handler() at
> all. You can check `isr' in that function and call complete if there was
> any error.

I'd prefer we apply my patch and pass the irqreturn_t variable to the
caller of this function so spurious irqs are shutdown. Should I send it
as a proper patch?