linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: add interrupt-names

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: <20241215-satisfied-expiring-9200ec935768@spud>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 14:56:58 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>, lars@...afoo.de,
	Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	eraretuya@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] dt-bindings: iio: accel: adxl345: add
 interrupt-names

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 12:10:57PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:19:05 +0000
> Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Add interrupt-names INT1 and INT2 for the two interrupt lines of the
> > sensor.
> > 
> > When one of the two interrupt lines is connected, the interrupt as its
> > interrupt-name, need to be declared in the devicetree. The driver then
> > configures the sensor to indicate its events on either INT1 or INT2.
> > 
> > If no interrupt is configured, then no interrupt-name should be
> > configured, and vice versa. In this case the sensor runs in FIFO BYPASS
> > mode. This allows sensor measurements, but none of the sensor events.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lothar Rubusch <l.rubusch@...il.com>
> 
> Just to repeat what I sent in reply to v6 (well after you'd posted this).
> Maybe we can maintain compatibility with the binding before this by adding
> a default of INT1.

But can you make that assumption? If we did, and it's not universally
true, we break systems that had INT2 connected that previously worked.

> Then you'd need to drop the dependency on interrupt-names.
> 
> I'm not sure though if the checking of number of entries will work against
> a default. Give it a go and see what happens :)
> 
> We are lucky that we can't have bindings in the wild assuming ordering
> of the two interrupts due to the maxItems being set for interrupts.
> 
> It's a messy corner, perhaps we should just not bother in the binding,
> but keep that default handling in the driver?
> 
> DT binding folk, what do you think the best way of handling this is?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)