linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain

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]

Message-ID: <20120821110329.GA7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:03:29 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > What makes you say this?  This is just a convenience for finding a
> > domain, irqdomains are *completely* indepentant of device tree.

> How can you say that? I think you mean _can_ be independent of DT. If
> that's what you mean then yes, that's true. All I'm saying is we need

No, I really mean what I'm saying.  Device tree builds on irqdomains,
not the other way around.

> another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain
> it without having direct access is via a device node.

This doesn't actually hold.

> > > - I know that you have interest in pushing the functionality into the
> > > IRQ domain subsystem, but I'm struggling to see how. It's calling into
> > > the IRQ domain where we're seeing issues in the first place, specifically
> > > irq_create_mapping(). How about if we passed 'irq_domain' as a parameter
> > > when requesting the IRQ? That way we can pass the correct IRQ without
> > > worry of conversion. If 'irq_domain' is !NULL the IRQ management subsystem
> > > can do the necessary conversions. If 'irq_domain' is NULL it continues to
> > > use the requested IRQ as a virq.

> > This is totally orthogonal to doing the mapping in the MFD subsystem
> > which is the issue here.

> Again, I only mentioned this because you said you wanted it to be handled
> by the irqdomain.

The *mapping* should be being handled in irqdomain.

> I'll code up the second suggestion now.

I've already done this.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)