linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gpiolib: acpi: Modify acpi_dev_irq_wake_get

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: <ZXoHXwmwzczAqlLv@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 21:34:55 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] gpiolib: acpi: Modify acpi_dev_irq_wake_get_by to
 use resource

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:00:19AM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> Other information besides wake capability can be provided about GPIO
> IRQs such as triggering, polarity, and sharability. Use resource flags
> to provide this information to the caller if they want it.
> 
> This should keep the API more robust over time as flags are added,
> modified, or removed. It also more closely matches acpi_irq_get which

acpi_irq_get()

> take a resource as an argument.
> 
> Rename the function to acpi_dev_get_gpio_irq_resource to better describe

acpi_dev_get_gpio_irq_resource()

> the function's new behavior.

...

> + * @r: pointer to resource to populate with irq information. It is not modified on failure.

IRQ

I don't think the second remark is even needed. It's usual approach, i.e.
we expect no changes in the output if error condition is met.

...

> + * Irq number will be available in the resource structure.

IRQ

...

> +			*r = (struct resource)DEFINE_RES_IRQ(irq);

Why do you need "(struct resource)" annotation?

...

> +	struct resource irqres;
>  	struct i2c_acpi_irq_context irq_ctx = {
>  		.irq = -ENOENT,
>  	};

Hmm... I'm wondering if we can reuse irqres as a context to the respective
lookup calls.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko