linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: of: Support interrupts-extended

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]

Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:40:31 +0200
From: Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: of: Support interrupts-extended


Am 22.06.24 um 16:07 schrieb Alex Bee:
>
> Am 22.06.24 um 15:49 schrieb Arend Van Spriel:
>> On June 22, 2024 3:38:32 PM Arend Van Spriel 
>> <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On June 22, 2024 12:56:02 AM Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This "new" version of defining external interrupts is around for a 
>>>> very
>>>> long time now and supported and preferred by irq_of_parse_and_map
>>>> respectively of_irq_parse_one.
>>>>
>>>> Support it in brcmfmac as well by checking if either "interrupts" or
>>>> "interrupts-extended" property exists as indication if 
>>>> irq_of_parse_and_map
>>>> should be called.
>>>
>>> All very interesting, but why should we add code for something that 
>>> is not
>>> specified in the bindings documentation?
>>>
>>> NAK (for now). Feel free to update the bindings document.
>>
> Sure, if you insist on it, I can update the bindings document. So far not
> many (no) users did that, as it is clearly specified as an alternative in
> devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt (sure, it's 
> not yet
> converted to yaml yet).
If you are worried about schema validation: Some magic will accept both
"interrupts" and "interrupts-extended" if only "interrupts" is specified in
the binding. Not sure that happens.

>> So looked up the interrupts-extended definition:
>>
>> The "interrupts-extended" property is a special form; useful when a 
>> node needs
>> to reference multiple interrupt parents or a different interrupt 
>> parent than
>> the inherited one. Each entry in this property contains both the 
>> parent phandle
>> and the interrupt specifier.
>>
> They point in this particular case is not how many interrupts exsist, but
> "... or a different interrupt parent than
> the inherited ..." which is almost always the case for brcmfmac, as it
> usually specifies a gpio controller as interrupt parent. So:
>
Maybe I should resend with a verbosity-increased commit message?
> ...
>         interrupt-parent = <&gpio0>;
>         interrupts = <RK_PA0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> ...
>
> gets to (a single line):
> ...
>     interrupts-extended:  = <&gpio0 RK_PA0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> ...
>
> Which is a much nicer form, imho.
> And by the way for instance
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-apq8026-lg-lenok.dts already uses it that way
> and the interrupt will currently not picked up (at least not by this
> driver).
>
> Alex
>
>> Given that brcmfmac device will only have one interrupt item defined 
>> there is no need to use it. If someone can give a good argument to 
>> support it please chime in.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arend
>>
>>
>>