linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 05/10] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <660f50a6-79e7-4b62-aad4-29453fa5b2be@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 16:39:05 +0530
From:   Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@...cinc.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC:     Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.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>,
        <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 v13 05/10] usb: dwc3: qcom: Refactor IRQ handling in QCOM
 Glue driver




>>
>> While I do so, since there are no qusb2 targets present on femto phy's, do
>> you suggest we still add them to port structure in dwc3-qcom ? I am inclined
>> to add it because it would make implementation look cleaner w.r.t code and
>> also spurious interrupts are not getting triggered (which was my primary
>> concern as it was never tested).
> 
> Yes, that's what I've been suggesting all along. It's a per-port
> interrupt so that's where it belongs.
> 
> We should still try to determine when each interrupt should be enabled
> and how best to implement that (hence all my questions).
> 
> For example, if there is no use for hs interrupts on SoCs using femto
> PHYs we should fix the bindings. If we can use dp/dm on SoCs using QUSB2
> PHYs, we should probably just ignore the hs interrupt when all three are
> defined (especially since that functionality has never worked anyway).
> 

Sure. Will finalise this once I get the complete info (why do we have 
dp/dm on qusb targets)

And apologies, I mentioned "qusb2 targets on femto phy's".
It was supposed to be "hs_phy_irq's on femto phy targets", but I think 
you got the gist of my question. Thanks for the response.

Regards,
Krishna,