Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751355AbdH1Ort (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:47:49 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50172 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751184AbdH1Ors (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:47:48 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A31A621A2F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=shawnguo@kernel.org Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:47:20 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Fenglin Wu Cc: Stephen Boyd , Kiran Gunda , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Abhijeet Dharmapurikar , David Collins , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] spmi: pmic-arb: Enforce the ownership check optionally Message-ID: <20170828144718.GD3525@dragon> References: <1503070110-15018-1-git-send-email-kgunda@codeaurora.org> <20170822085541.GB3685@dragon> <93b8935e-061f-ba3a-ee36-8ffbc8230bcc@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <93b8935e-061f-ba3a-ee36-8ffbc8230bcc@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2485 Lines: 49 On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:27:54PM +0800, Fenglin Wu wrote: > On 8/22/2017 4:55 PM, Shawn Guo wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:18:58PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>On 08/18/2017 08:28 AM, Kiran Gunda wrote: > >>>The peripheral ownership check is not necessary on single master > >>>platforms. Hence, enforce the peripheral ownership check optionally. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Kiran Gunda > >>>Tested-by: Shawn Guo > >>>--- > >> > >>This sounds like a band-aid. Isn't the gpio driver going to keep probing > >>all the pins that are not supposed to be accessed due to security > >>constraints? What exactly is failing in the gpio case? > > > >There is a platform_irq_count() call in pinctrl-spmi-gpio probe > >function. Due to the owner check in spmi-pmic-arb IRQ domain > >qpnpint_irq_domain_dt_translate() function, the call will return irq > >number as zero and cause pmic_gpio_probe() fail with -EINVAL error. > > > >[ 1.608516] [] qpnpint_irq_domain_dt_translate+0x168/0x194 > >[ 1.613557] [] irq_create_fwspec_mapping+0x17c/0x2d8 > >[ 1.620672] [] irq_create_of_mapping+0x64/0x74 > >[ 1.627008] [] of_irq_get+0x54/0x64 > >[ 1.633169] [] platform_get_irq+0x20/0x150 > >[ 1.638117] [] platform_irq_count+0x28/0x44 > >[ 1.643850] [] pmic_gpio_probe+0x50/0x544 > > > >ShawnI just realize this patch is trying to fix this issue from spmi driver > level. Actually I had submitted a change in spmi-gpio driver to fix > this by ignoring the GPIOs which the IRQ is not owned by APPS > processor. The maintainer hasn't reviewed it yet: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arm-msm/msg28849.html > I am trying to understand if my patch is still needed if Kiran's patch > get merged, the intention for my patch originally is for fixing the same > probe failure, but it could hide the GPIOs which are not allowed to use > from the pinctrl driver level. Please help to suggest. As I just replied to Greg, this patch is obsolete and replaced by 'spmi: pmic-arb: Move the ownership check to irq_chip callback' [1]. With the patch applied, we can get rid of the spmi-gpio probe failure. So from the point of fixing the issue, your patch is not needed. But I would like to discuss your patch a bit, and will reply to your patch with my comments. Shawn [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/23/325