linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

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: <CAEgOgz4yhDzy_BFiotK5Qi48sczR3PL1oPjPhNYC9O94P6AnzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:06:35 +1000
From:	Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@...inx.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Cc:	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:04:52 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@...inx.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:17:01 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@...inx.com> wrote:
>> >> It's going to get a little verbose once you start making multiple
>> >> connections as you need one mux per wire. Perhaps it could be cleaned
>> >> up by making the foo_irq_mux node(s) a child of foo?
>> >
>> > It could, but then you need some way of attaching a driver to that node,
>> > and that would require building knowledge into the driver again.
>> >
>> > Can you boil it down to a couple of concrete examples? What is a
>> > specific example of how the platform should decide which interrupt line
>> > to use?
>> >
>>
>> So i've spent some time playing with this. I now have a booting kernel
>> with multiple root interrupt controllers and peripheral devices
>> multiply-connected to both root controllers. But only one on of the
>> controllers is used by Linux (as linux being able to use multiple
>> intcs is a non-trivial problem). So the scheme I am using is to have
>> one of these root intc's marked as disabled via
>
> Multiple intc's should be a solved problem. What issue are you seeing?
> Or is this a microblaze specific problem?
>

It's multiple root (i.e. have no explicit parent) interrupt
controllers. And linux
doesnt respect status = "disabled" for interrupt controllers at all it seems.

I'll send the patches tmrw.

Regards,
Peter
--
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/