linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] ACPI: platform: setup MSI domain for ACPI based platform device

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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:40:53 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        "ACPI Devel Maling List" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, Ma Jun <majun258@...wei.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        "Agustin Vega-Frias" <agustinv@...eaurora.org>,
        Charles Garcia-Tobin <charles.garcia-tobin@....com>,
        <huxinwei@...wei.com>, <yimin@...wei.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] ACPI: platform: setup MSI domain for ACPI based
 platform device

On 2016/12/29 22:44, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 12/25/2016 8:31 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> A type->setup() would be somewhat cleaner I think, but then it's more
>>> code.  Whichever works better I guess. :-)
>> Agree, I will demo the type->setup() way and send out the patch for review,
>> also I find one minor issue for the IORT code, will update that also for next
>> version.
> Can you provide details on what the minor issue is with the IORT code?

It's about the mapping of NC (named component) -> SMMU -> ITS, we can
describe it as two ID mappings:
 - NC->SMMU
 - NC->ITS
And the code for now can work perfect for such id mappings, but if we
want to support chained mapping NC  -> SMMU -> ITS, we need to add
extra code which in my [PATCH v5 10/14] ACPI: ARM64: IORT: rework
iort_node_get_id() for NC->SMMU->ITS case, but I just scanned the first
id mapping for now, I think I need to scan all the id mappings (but seems
single id mappings don't need to do that, I will investigate it more).

Thanks
Hanjun