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  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]
Date:	Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:49:38 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <>
To:	Liviu Dudau <>
Cc:	Yijing Wang <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>,,, Xinwei Hu <>,
	Wuyun <>,,
	Russell King <>,,,,,
	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>,, Joerg Roedel <>,,,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>,,,
	Sebastian Ott <>,
	Tony Luck <>,,
	"David S. Miller" <>,, Chris Metcalf <>,
	Ralf Baechle <>,
	Lucas Stach <>,
	David Vrabel <>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <>,
	Michael Ellerman <>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] Use MSI chip framework to configure MSI/MSI-X
 in all platforms

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:48:55PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:42:36AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:14:10AM +0800, Yijing Wang wrote:
> > > This series is based Bjorn's pci/msi branch
> > > git:// pci/msi
> > > 
> > > Currently, there are a lot of weak arch functions in MSI code.
> > > Thierry Reding Introduced MSI chip framework to configure MSI/MSI-X in arm.
> > > This series use MSI chip framework to refactor MSI code across all platforms
> > > to eliminate weak arch functions. Then all MSI irqs will be managed in a 
> > > unified framework. Because this series changed a lot of ARCH MSI code,
> > > so tests in the platforms which MSI code modified are warmly welcomed!
> > 
> > Apart from the comments to the individual patches I very much like where
> > this is going. Thanks for taking care of this.
> > 
> > Thierry
> I am actually in disagreement with you, Thierry. I don't like the general direction
> of the patches, or at least I don't like the fact that we don't have a portable
> way of setting up the msi_chip without having to rely on weak architectural hooks.

Oh, good. That's actually one of the things I said I wasn't happy with
either. =)

> I'm surprised no one considers the case of a platform having more than one host
> bridge and possibly more than one MSI unit. With the current proposed patchset I
> can't see how that would work.

The PCI core can already deal with that. An MSI chip can be set per bus
and the weak pcibios_add_bus() can be used to set that. Often it might
not even be necessary to do it via pcibios_add_bus() if you create the
root bus directly, since you can attach the MSI chip at that time.

> What I would like to see is a way of creating the pci_host_bridge structure outside
> the pci_create_root_bus(). That would then allow us to pass this sort of platform
> details like associated msi_chip into the host bridge and the child busses will
> have an easy way of finding the information needed by finding the root bus and then
> the host bridge structure. Then the generic pci_scan_root_bus() can be used by (mostly)
> everyone and the drivers can remove their kludges that try to work around the
> current limitations.

I think both issues are orthogonal. Last time I checked a lot of work
was still necessary to unify host bridges enough so that it could be
shared across architectures. But perhaps some of that work has
happened in the meantime.

But like I said, when you create the root bus, you can easily attach the
MSI chip to it.


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists