linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111206112545.GQ14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:25:45 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of_platform driver

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:05:54AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Even better.  Avoid the first 16 IRQ numbers altogether - so that ISA
> > drivers which have these numbers hard-encoded in them will see failures
> > if they're expecting standard ISA IRQ numbering.
> 
> The ISA bus space is non-discoverable so that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> > But.. let's make one thing clear: Alan Cox and Linus have been going on
> > about how IRQ0 should not be used.  Let's be crystal clear: even x86
> > uses IRQ0.  It happens to be the PIC timer, and that gets claimed early
> > on during the x86 boot.  So please don't tell me that x86 avoids IRQ0.
> > It doesn't.  It just happens that x86 never shows IRQ0 to anything but
> > the i8253 PIC driver.
> 
> x86 has an internal invisible IRQ 0 on some platforms. It's never exposed
> beyond the arch code.
> 
> > So lets see how x86 squeels if we make the i8253 PIC driver reject IRQ0.
> > I bet that there'd be absolute fury at such a suggestion.
> 
> Actually it would be about ten minutes work to remap it to some other
> number that isn't used. It never goes via request_irq or via any core or
> driver layer code however.
> 
> In the ARM case the same is going to be true. If you have IRQ 0 plumbing
> that only goes internally in the arch/arm code - eg an ARM with IRQ 0
> wired to something totally arch specific and non-driver then it's not
> going to break and like the internals of x86 doesn't matter.
> 
> > When x86 sorts this out, there _might_ be some more motivation to take
> > such comments seriously.  Until then it's more like a joke.
> 
> Pity you feel that way, but if ARM wants to continue to break more and
> more as we clean up NO_IRQ for everything else that's your privilege, but
> don't expect any sympathy.

For the platforms I care about, it probably won't break.  For those which
do break, it's a matter of fixing their include/mach/irqs.h and the code
in their irqchips to convert the IRQ number to the correct bitmask for
the register.

However, I have suggested in the past that new platforms _should_ avoid
not just IRQ0 but IRQ0-15 (for a completely different reason to that of
'IRQ0 means no IRQ'.)  But such comments just get ignored, so I just
don't see the point in doing anything about this.  If people experience
breakage, so be it.  I too will have little sympathy but not for the same
reason.
--
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/