linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/12] of: Add binding document for MIPS GIC

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5407AD06.6070402@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:06:30 -0700
From:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>
CC:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Jeffrey Deans <jeffrey.deans@...tec.com>,
	Markos Chandras <markos.chandras@...tec.com>,
	Paul Burton <paul.burton@...tec.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Linux-MIPS <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] of: Add binding document for MIPS GIC

On 09/03/2014 04:53 PM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:50 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Your comments don't really make sense to me in the context of my knowledge
>> of the GIC.
>>
>> Of course all the CP0 timer and performance counter interrupts are per-CPU
>> and routed directly to the corresponding CP0_Cause[IP7..IP2] bits.  We are
>> don't need to give them further consideration.
>>
>>
>> Here is the scenario you should consider:
>>
>>    o 16 CPU cores.
>>    o 1 GIC routing interrupts from external sources to the 16 CPUs.
>>    o 2 network controllers each with an interrupt line routed to the GIC.
>>
>> Q: What would the GIC "interrupts" property look like?
>>
>> Note that the GIC doesn't have a single "interrupt-parent", as it can route
>> interrupts to *all* 16 CPUs.
>>
>> I propose that the GIC have neither an "interrupt-parent", nor "interrupts".
>> The fact that it is an "mti,global-interrupt-controller", means that the
>> software drivers for the GIC already know how to route interrupts, and any
>> information the device tree could contain is redundant.
>
> Ok, I misunderstood your opposition to the binding.
>
> My intention for the "interrupt-parent" and "interrupts" property of
> the GIC was to express that GIC interrupts are routed to the CPU
> interrupt vectors and that a certain set of these vectors are
> available for use by the GIC.  I would agree that these are mostly
> redundant (obviously the GIC routes interrupts to CPU interrupt
> vecotrs) and that it is not the most accurate description of the
> GIC-CPU relationship (the CPU interrupt controller are per-CPU, not
> global, and the GIC can route interrupts to any of them), though I'm
> not sure that there's a better way of describing it in DT.
>
> So that leaves us with something like this:
>
> interrupt-controller@...c0000 {
>          compatible = "mti,global-interrupt-controller";
>
>          interrupt-controller;
>          #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>
>          available-cpu-vectors = <2>, <3>, ...


Exactly what I had in mind, except for the missing "reg" property.

This gives software the information it needs, but doesn't impose any policy.

I will defer to others on the exact name the "available-cpu-vectors" 
should have.




> };
>
> DT folks, thoughts?
>
>

--
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/