linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v7 1/6] dt-bindings: gpio: fix microchip,mpfs-gpio interrupt descriptions

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: <b07538f3-44e4-4d98-b64d-0d15428e720f@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:25:38 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: conor@...nel.org, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski
 <brgl@...ev.pl>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@...belt.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v7 1/6] dt-bindings: gpio: fix microchip,mpfs-gpio interrupt
 descriptions

On 23/07/2024 13:27, Conor Dooley wrote:
> The microchip,mpfs-gpio binding suffered greatly due to being written
> with a narrow minded view of the controller, and the interrupt bits
> ended up incorrect. It was mistakenly assumed that the interrupt
> configuration was set by platform firmware, based on the FPGA
> configuration, and that the GPIO DT nodes were the only way to really
> communicate interrupt configuration to software.
> 
> Instead, the mux should be a device in its own right, and the GPIO
> controllers should be connected to it, rather than to the PLIC.
> Now that a binding exists for that mux, try to fix the misconceptions
> in the GPIO controller binding.
> 
> Firstly, it's not possible for this controller to have fewer than 14
> GPIOs, and thus 14 interrupts also. There are three controllers, with
> 14, 24 & 32 GPIOs each.
> 
> The example is wacky too - it follows from the incorrect understanding
> that the GPIO controllers are connected to the PLIC directly. They are
> not however, with a mux sitting in between. Update the example to use
> the mux as a parent, and the interrupt numbers at the mux for GPIO2 as
> the example - rather than the strange looking, repeated <53>.
> 

You make ngpios required, which could be an ABI break except that there
is no Linux user for this, so there is no ABI break, right? If so, would
be nice to mention it. Rest looks good:

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof