Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-3848-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:41:30 +0200
From: Marek =?UTF-8?B?QmVow7pu?= <kabel@kernel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Cc: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@arndb.de>, soc@kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, Hans de Goede
 <hdegoede@redhat.com>, Ilpo =?UTF-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?=
 <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>, Olivia Mackall <olivia@selenic.com>,
 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] platform: cznic: turris-omnia-mcu: Add support
 for MCU provided TRNG
Message-ID: <20240425124130.6c96e273@dellmb>
In-Reply-To: <Zioql5TSzTLtMsX7@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240424173809.7214-1-kabel@kernel.org>
	<20240424173809.7214-7-kabel@kernel.org>
	<ZilQiHLLj1eQxP2L@smile.fi.intel.com>
	<20240424205123.5fc82a1a@dellmb>
	<Zilhvv3ffWMDL1Uj@smile.fi.intel.com>
	<20240425113447.5d4b21f4@dellmb>
	<Zioql5TSzTLtMsX7@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:04:07 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:34:47AM +0200, Marek Beh=C3=BAn wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:47:10 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org> wrote: =20
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 08:51:23PM +0200, Marek Beh=C3=BAn wrote: =20
>=20
> ...
>=20
> > > For what purpose? I don't see drivers doing that. Are you expecting t=
hat
> > > the same IRQ mapping will be reused for something else? Can you elabo=
rate
> > > how? (I can imagine one theoretical / weird case how to achieve that,
> > > but impractical.) =20
> >=20
> > I do a lot of binding/unbinding of that driver. I was under the
> > impression that all resources should be dropped on driver unbind.
> >  =20
> > > Besides above, this is asymmetrical call to gpiod_to_irq(). If we rea=
lly care
> > > about this, it should be provided by GPIO library. =20
> >=20
> > Something like the following? =20
>=20
> Not needed. IRQ mappings are per domain, and GPIO chip has its own associ=
ated
> with the respective lifetime, AFAIU when you remove the GPIO chip, all ma=
ppings
> will be disposed (as I pointed out in previous mail).
>=20

OMG you are right :) of course. OK, I shall drop this.

Marek