linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x

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: <afd5a80f-63ff-43e3-a682-56eae25896b4@mailbox.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:12:35 +0100
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...lbox.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>, Job Noorman <job@...rman.info>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

On 1/21/26 11:53 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:42:55PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 1/21/26 6:23 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50:53PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>>>>>>     	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>>>>>>     	 * to do it this way here.
>>>>>>     	 */
>>>>>> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>>>>>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
>>>>>> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
>>>>>> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>>>>>> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>
>>>>> You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
>>>>>
>>>>> 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
>>>>> 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>>
>>>> This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I need to
>>>> call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I cannot
>>>> disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call
>>>> ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable IRQs to
>>>> avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?
>>>
>>> You do not need to use scoped_guard() because you already define a scope
>>> in your if statement:
>>>
>>> if (client->irq > 0) {
>>> 	guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
>>> 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>> } else {
>>> 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>> }
>>>
>>> This is sill a bit awkward. Maybe we could add to interrupt.h
>>
>> Let me do the part above in V5 , and then the part below as a separate
>> follow up patch/series. I already added the later in tree so it won't be
>> lost. Does that work for you ?
> 
> It does, thanks.
OK, V5 is out, the disable_valid_interrupt guard part is coming shortly.