linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

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: <ac62fdeb7e436ccf1df00904fd53826778f4593a.camel@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:30:08 +0000
From: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Alexandre Belloni	
 <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>, 
 Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, Will McVicker
 <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, Juan Yescas	 <jyescas@...gle.com>, Douglas
 Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, 	kernel-team@...roid.com, Kaustabh
 Chakraborty <kauschluss@...root.org>, 	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, 	linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Samsung mfd/rtc driver alarm IRQ simplification

Hi Lee,

On Wed, 2025-11-26 at 11:29 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, André Draszik wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > With the attached patches the Samsung s5m RTC driver is simplified a
> > little bit with regards to alarm IRQ acquisition.
> > 
> > The end result is that instead of having a list of IRQ numbers for each
> > variant (and a BUILD_BUG_ON() to ensure consistency), the RTC driver
> > queries the 'alarm' platform resource from the parent (mfd cell).
> > 
> > Additionally, we can drop a now-useless field from runtime data,
> > reducing memory consumption slightly.
> > 
> > The attached patches must be applied in-order as patch 2 without 1 will
> > fail at runtime, and patch 3 without 2 will fail at build time. I would
> > expect them all to go via the MFD tree. Alternatively, they could be
> > applied individually to the respective kernel trees during multiple
> > kernel release cycles, but that seems a needless complication and
> > delay.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - rebase on top of https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251114-s2mpg10-chained-irq-v1-1-34ddfa49c4cd@linaro.org
> > - return struct regmap_irq_chip_data * in sec_irq_init() (Lee)
> > - collect tags
> > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251114-s5m-alarm-v1-0-c9b3bebae65f@linaro.org
> > 
> > ---
> > André Draszik (3):
> >       mfd: sec: add rtc alarm IRQ as platform device resource
> >       rtc: s5m: query platform device IRQ resource for alarm IRQ
> >       mfd: sec: drop now unused struct sec_pmic_dev::irq_data
> > 
> >  drivers/mfd/sec-common.c         | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  drivers/mfd/sec-core.h           |  2 +-
> >  drivers/mfd/sec-irq.c            | 63 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >  drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c            | 21 +++++---------
> >  include/linux/mfd/samsung/core.h |  1 -
> >  5 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
> 
> The MFD parts look okay to me.
> 
> Once we have the RTC Ack, I'll merge this and send out a PR.

Thanks Lee. Alexandre kindly acked v1 in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/2025111415582194c6ee16@mail.local/
and there was no change to the RTC part in v2 hence I collected it
already.

So should be good to go?

Cheers,
Andre'