linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for ARMv7-M's NVIC

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: <201304172223.43707.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:23:43 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for ARMv7-M's NVIC

On Wednesday 17 April 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> This patch triggers two checkpatch warnings:
> 
> 	WARNING: Avoid CamelCase: <nvic_do_IRQ>
> 	WARNING: Avoid CamelCase: <handle_IRQ>
> 
> but I think they are OK for consistency?!

You obviously have no choice for handle_IRQ, but I think the common way to
name the first-level interrupt handler would be "nvic_handle_irq" here.

> Moreover sparse tells me:
> 
> 	drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c:58:1: warning: symbol 'nvic_do_IRQ' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> nvic_do_IRQ is called from assembler only, so a declaration couldn't be
> shared and I couldn't find a nice place for a declaration. Suggestions
> welcome.

Can't you make it static and call set_handle_irq() on it from the
probe function?

> + * Each bank handles 32 irqs. Only the 16th (= last) bank handles only
> + * 16 irqs.
> + */
> +#define NVIC_MAX_IRQ		((NVIC_MAX_BANKS - 1) * 32 + 16)

Is this actually inherent to the hardware design, or is the number of irqs
actually customizable? Also, why do you care about the maximum? You only
use it to check against the device tree provided value, but I suppose
you could just as well trust that property to be correct.


	Arnd
--
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/