linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 06/11] usb: dwc3: qcom: Refactor IRQ handling in QCOM Glue driver

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: <80c77f7f-283b-ab1a-1c54-a6a203ae659e@quicinc.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:42:36 +0530
From:   Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC:     Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        "Andy Gross" <agross@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@...cinc.com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
        <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>, <quic_ppratap@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_jackp@...cinc.com>, <ahalaney@...hat.com>,
        <quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/11] usb: dwc3: qcom: Refactor IRQ handling in QCOM
 Glue driver



On 8/12/2023 2:14 PM, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
>> So is "is it okay to add SoC-specific compatibles and add the port 
>> number in
>> match data" what you're asking?
>>
>> If so, that doesn't seem right.
>>
>> The user should not "feel free to remove any IRQ", modifying the 
>> devicetree to
>> depict a subset of the hardware is not something we want to support. 
>> The driver
>> has to work with the "full" description in accordance with the bindings.
>>
> 
> Hi Konrad,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> While I agree with you that we must not skip any hw specifics in DT, 
> there is nothing stopping the user from doing so right ?
> 
> And whatever be the case, we must be a fool-proof and fail safe system 
> able to handle all such situations. While we can read interrupt IRQ 
> prefixes to get port count in one way or other, adding a compatible 
> would be the least ambiguous path. Is there any other concern you see in 
> adding a compatible ? I might be missing something because even Bjorn's 
> suggestion too was to try and avoid a new compatible addition and to add 
> it only if we have no other way of reliably reading the port count 
> (which I believe would be an issue if we need to rely on interrupt name 
> reading).
> 
Hi Konrad. Came up with an implementation of reading the interrupt names 
and parsing for port count and added them as attachments. I still feel 
adding a compatible is a better option. Let me know which one is the 
better path. The one in v10, or something similar to the attached patch. 
(I tested it on sc7280/sc8280 and interrupts are registered properly)

Regards,
Krishna,
View attachment "0001-usb-dwc3-qcom-Add-helper-function-to-request-threade.patch" of type "text/plain" (3716 bytes)

View attachment "0002-usb-dwc3-qcom-Read-multiport-interrupts.patch" of type "text/plain" (8825 bytes)