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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:12:40 -0800
From:   Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        <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


On 12/15/2022 12:10 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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?
yes, please