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: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:02:59 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] irqchip: Add DT binding doc for the virtual irq demuxer chip On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote: > [...] [cut] > Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach > you proposed, along with documentation updates and comments at usage > sites to make it clear when it is valid to use. > > Thank you for bearing with me so far. No prob. :-) Actually, there's one more approach possible. Thomas might not like it, but here it goes anyway for consideration. What about making it possible to provide a special irqaction to be called while suspended for the shared IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts. Say we have a "suspended_action" pointer in struct irq_desc in addition to "action" and we swap them in suspend_device_irq() if desc->no_suspend_depth is nonzero and "suspended_action" is not NULL (and then back in resume_irq()). Then, the platform might supply "suspended_action" that will do the right thing for the IRQ. So the requirement would be to have "suspended_action" set to start with and then the WARN_ON() in irq_pm_install_action() may check if that is present and only trigger the warning if it isn't. Thoughs? Rafael -- 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