linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] of: irq: add wake capable bit to of_irq

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: <20231215153035.GA3996646-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:30:35 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] of: irq: add wake capable bit to of_irq_resource()

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:05:16PM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> > If a device has multiple interrupts, but none named "wakeup" you are
> > saying all the interrupts are wakeup capable. That's not right though.
> > Only the device knows which interrupts are wakeup capable. You need:
> >
> > return wakeindex >= 0 && wakeindex == index;
> 
> I was assuming logic described in the DT bindings:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/wakeup-source.txt
> "Also, if device is marked as a wakeup source, then all the primary
> interrupt(s) can be used as wakeup interrupt(s)."

Also not the best wording I think.

Which interrupts are primary interrupts?

If we can't determine which interrupt, then we should just leave it up 
to the device.

Rob