linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: brcmstb: implement irq_mask

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: <CAHp75Vc=ejHPwA05MHBxJQdJWv49pcuTNax0VikXruvwVM+Y9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:36:46 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>, 
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...nel.org>, Christophe Leroy <chleroy@...nel.org>, 
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] gpio: brcmstb: implement irq_mask_ack

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 3:06 AM Florian Fainelli
<florian.fainelli@...adcom.com> wrote:
>
> From: Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>
>
> The irq_mask_ack operation is slightly more efficient than doing
> irq_mask and irq_ack separately.

I would refer to the callbacks as

.irq_mask()
.irq_ack()

et cetera.

> More importantly for this driver it bypasses the check of
> irqd_irq_masked ensuring a previously masked but still active
> interrupt gets remasked if unmasked at the hardware level. This
> allows the driver to more efficiently unmask the wake capable
> interrupts when quiescing without needing to enable the irqs
> individually to clear the irqd_irq_masked state.

...

> -// Copyright (C) 2015-2017 Broadcom
> +// Copyright (C) 2015-2026 Broadcom

Shouldn't it be rather 2015-2017,2026 ? (In one case when I updated a
driver for Intel, I went via Git history to gather the info.)

...

>  static void brcmstb_gpio_set_imask(struct brcmstb_gpio_bank *bank,
> -               unsigned int hwirq, bool enable)
> +               unsigned int hwirq, bool enable, bool ack)

This type of interface is usually discouraged as it makes code harder
to read and follow. Since there are a lot of duplication, I recommend
to move the ack op to a separate helper.

...

> -       gpio_generic_write_reg(&bank->chip,
> -                              priv->reg_base + GIO_MASK(bank->id), imask);
> +       if (ack)
> +               gpio_generic_write_reg(&bank->chip,
> +                                      priv->reg_base + GIO_MASK(bank->id),
> +                                      imask);

Id est this piece...



> +static void brcmstb_gpio_irq_mask_ack(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> +       struct brcmstb_gpio_bank *bank = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> +
> +       brcmstb_gpio_set_imask(bank, d->hwirq, false, true);

...and call it here explicitly (seems the only place for it, so it can
even be just moved here without an intermediate helper).

>  }

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko