linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: of: fix lookup quirk for MIPS Lantiq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZoLoyjBa6xY85YBv@google.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:35:06 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: of: fix lookup quirk for MIPS Lantiq

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:51:00AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 8:35 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > As it turns out, there is a large number of out-of-tree DTSes (in
> > OpenWrt project) that used to specify incorrect (active high) polarity
> > for the Lantiq reset GPIO, so to keep compatibility while they are
> > being updated a quirk for force the polarity low is needed. Luckily
> > these old DTSes used nonstandard name for the property ("gpio-reset" vs
> > "reset-gpios") so the quirk will not hurt if there are any new devices
> > that need inverted polarity as they can specify the right polarity in
> > their DTS when using the standard "reset-gpios" property.
> >
> > Additionally the condition to enable the translation from standard to
> > non-standard reset GPIO property name was inverted and the replacement
> > name for the property was not correct. Fix this as well.
> >
> > Fixes: fbbbcd177a27 ("gpiolib: of: add quirk for locating reset lines with legacy bindings")
> > Fixes: 90c2d2eb7ab5 ("MIPS: pci: lantiq: switch to using gpiod API")
> > Reported-by: Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> > index 59c7f8a2431a..d21085830632 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> > @@ -203,6 +203,16 @@ static void of_gpio_try_fixup_polarity(const struct device_node *np,
> >                  */
> >                 { "qi,lb60",            "rb-gpios",     true },
> >  #endif
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_LANTIQ)
> > +               /*
> > +                * According to the PCI specification, the RST# pin is an
> > +                * active-low signal. However, most of the device trees that
> > +                * have been widely used for a long time incorrectly describe
> > +                * reset GPIO as active-high, and were also using wrong name
> > +                * for the property.
> > +                */
> > +               { "lantiq,pci-xway",    "gpio-reset",   false },
> > +#endif
> >  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TOUCHSCREEN_TSC2005)
> >                 /*
> >                  * DTS for Nokia N900 incorrectly specified "active high"
> > @@ -512,9 +522,9 @@ static struct gpio_desc *of_find_gpio_rename(struct device_node *np,
> >                 { "reset",      "reset-n-io",   "marvell,nfc-uart" },
> >                 { "reset",      "reset-n-io",   "mrvl,nfc-uart" },
> >  #endif
> > -#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_LANTIQ)
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_LANTIQ)
> >                 /* MIPS Lantiq PCI */
> > -               { "reset",      "gpios-reset",  "lantiq,pci-xway" },
> > +               { "reset",      "gpio-reset",   "lantiq,pci-xway" },
> >  #endif
> >
> >                 /*
> > --
> > 2.45.2.803.g4e1b14247a-goog
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dmitry
> 
> Can you rebase it on top of v6.10-rc6? It doesn't apply to my fixes branch.

Ah, yes, I had another quirk to TSC2005 in my tree that gave the
conflict.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry