| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:14:19 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] Core devices: add OF interrupt controller
sorting method
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:54:09AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> When several interrupt controllers are initialized, it is
> necessary to probe them in the order described by their
> cascading interrupts (or interrupt-parent in OF parlance).
>
> This patch introduces a method that can be passed to
> core_driver_init_class() at runtime and that will
> reorder the device list according to the OF properties.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> ---
> drivers/base/core_device.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/core_device.h | 2 +
> 2 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core_device.c b/drivers/base/core_device.c
> index 9262145..a8df59d 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core_device.c
> @@ -10,7 +10,9 @@
> */
> #include <linux/core_device.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/sort.h>
>
> static struct list_head anchors[CORE_DEV_CLASS_MAX] __initdata = {
> [CORE_DEV_CLASS_IRQ] = LIST_HEAD_INIT(anchors[CORE_DEV_CLASS_IRQ]),
> @@ -105,4 +107,111 @@ void __init of_core_device_populate(enum core_device_class class,
> core_device_register(class, dev);
> }
> }
> +
> +struct intc_desc {
> + struct core_device *dev;
> + struct intc_desc *parent;
> + int order;
> +};
> +
> +static struct intc_desc * __init irq_find_parent(struct core_device *dev,
> + struct intc_desc *intcs,
> + int nr)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!dev->of_node)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + np = of_irq_find_parent(dev->of_node);
> + if (!np || dev->of_node == np) {
> + pr_debug("%s has no interrupt-parent\n",
> + dev->of_node->full_name);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + of_node_put(np);
> + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
> + if (intcs[i].dev->of_node == np) {
> + pr_debug("%s interrupt-parent %s found in probe list\n",
> + dev->of_node->full_name, np->full_name);
> + return &intcs[i];
> + }
> +
> + pr_warning("%s interrupt-parent %s not in probe list\n",
> + dev->of_node->full_name, np->full_name);
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init irq_cmp_intc_desc(const void *x1, const void *x2)
> +{
> + const struct intc_desc *d1 = x1, *d2 = x2;
> + return d1->order - d2->order;
> +}
> +
> +void __init core_device_irq_sort(struct list_head *head)
> +{
> + struct intc_desc *intcs;
> + struct core_device *dev, *tmp;
> + int count = 0, i = 0, inc, max_order = 0;
> +
> + if (list_empty(head))
> + return;
> +
> + /* Count the number of interrupt controllers */
> + list_for_each_entry(dev, head, entry)
> + count++;
> +
> + if (count == 1)
> + return;
If you change this to 'if (count <= 1)', then I think the list_empty() test above becomes redundant.
> +
> + /* Allocate a big enough array */
> + intcs = kmalloc(sizeof(*intcs) * count, GFP_KERNEL);
kzalloc()
> + if (!intcs) {
> + pr_err("irq_core_device_sort: allocation failed");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Populate the array */
> + i = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry(dev, head, entry) {
> + intcs[i].dev = dev;
> + intcs[i].parent = NULL;
> + intcs[i].order = 0;
Clearing parent and order become redundant when using kzalloc().
> + i++;
> + }
> +
> + /* Find out the interrupt-parents */
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> + intcs[i].parent = irq_find_parent(intcs[i].dev, intcs, count);
> +
> + /* Compute the orders */
> + do {
> + inc = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> + if (intcs[i].parent &&
> + intcs[i].order <= intcs[i].parent->order) {
> + intcs[i].order = intcs[i].parent->order + 1;
> + if (max_order < intcs[i].order)
> + max_order = intcs[i].order;
> + inc = 1;
> + }
> + } while (inc);
Can't this look be rolled into the list_for_each_entry() loop?
This is a good start (and is probably pragmatically what should be
done immediately), but there is an added complexity that an irq
controller can actually have multiple parents if it is attached to an
interrupt nexus.
That said, it might just be best to punt that use-case out to a 'real'
device driver than can defer probing until its dependencies are met
(assuming deferred probe gets merged). Not all interrupt controllers
need to be probed early.
As for the implementation, I think we can do better with fewer loops:
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
parent = irq_find_parent(intcs[i].dev, intcs, count);
if (parent) {
list_add(&intcs[i].list, &parent->child_list);
} else {
WARN_ON(root_parent);
root_parent = &intcs[i];
}
}
And then simply walk each intcs' child_list starting at the root_parent.
> diff --git a/include/linux/core_device.h b/include/linux/core_device.h
> index ca67e5e..e632868 100644
> --- a/include/linux/core_device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/core_device.h
> @@ -48,11 +48,13 @@ void core_driver_init_class(enum core_device_class class,
> #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> void of_core_device_populate(enum core_device_class class,
> struct of_device_id *matches);
> +void core_device_irq_sort(struct list_head *head);
> #else
> static inline void of_core_device_populate(enum core_device_class class,
> struct of_device_id *matches)
> {
> }
> +#define core_device_irq_sort NULL
> #endif
>
> struct core_driver_setup_block {
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists