linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: single: Add compatible for ti,am625-padconf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:59:23 +0300
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
Cc:     Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: single: Add compatible for ti,am625-padconf

* Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com> [230807 08:09]:
> On Aug 07, 2023 at 10:07:24 +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> [230805 17:15]:
> > > On 10:25-20230805, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> > > > From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> > > > +static const struct pcs_soc_data pinctrl_single_am625 = {
> > > > +	.flags = PCS_QUIRK_SHARED_IRQ | PCS_CONTEXT_LOSS_OFF,
> > > > +	.irq_enable_mask = (1 << 29),   /* WKUP_EN */
> > > > +	.irq_status_mask = (1 << 30),   /* WKUP_EVT */
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Why cant we set this in the k3-pinctrl.h and set it once?
> 
> Do you mean that I set 1 << 29 and 30 as sort of macros in the
> k3-pinctrl.h file and then include it in pinctrl-single.c?
> 
> Are we okay to #include a header from arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti?

Yes, but SoC specific defines needs to start with a SoC specific
prefix as multiple files may be included for various SoCs.

> If I understand what Nishanth is saying correctly, are we expected to
> set the wake_en bit on every single K3 SoC's every single padconf reg?
> 
> I am a little sceptical with this approach, because what is people
> _don't_ want to wakeup from certain pads? What would be the right way to
> disable wakeup on those pads then?

The wake_en only gets set when some driver does request_irq() on
the wakeirq. No need to set them all.

> Sure, I could take a look, but setting wake_en on all pads still
> doesn't feel right to me.

No need to set all wake_en pads, just checking that if request_irq()
is done for some pin that does not have wake_en capability does not
cause eternal interrupts if a reserved bit is high all the time :)

Regards,

Tony