linux-kernel - Re: [patch 08/16] genirq: Introduce callback irq_chip.irq_write_msi

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: <8761ece85x.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:21:46 +0000
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	"Yun Wu \(Abel\)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"grant.likely\@linaro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 08/16] genirq: Introduce callback irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg

On Tue, Nov 18 2014 at  2:34:44 pm GMT, "Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 2014/11/18 22:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/18 21:43, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> 	We provide an irq_chip for each type of interrupt controller
>>>> instead of devices. For the example mentioned above, if device A
>>>> and Group B has different interrupt controllers, we just need to
>>>> implement irq_chip_A and irq_chip_B and set irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg()
>>>> to suitable callbacks.
>>>> 	The framework already achieves what you you want:)
>>>
>>> What if device A and group B have the same interrupt controller?
>> 
>> Well, if write_msg() is different they are hardly the same.
>> 
>
> The GICv3 ITS now deals with both PCI and non PCI message interrupts.
> We can't require the new devices behave writing message in a same way.
> What we can do is to abstract all the endpoints' behavior, and I
> provided one abstraction in an earlier reply.

This is why the framework gives you the opportunity to provide methods
that:
- compose the message
- program the message into the device

None of that has to be PCI specific, and gives you a clean
abstraction. The framework only gives you a number of shortcuts for PCI
MSI, because that's what most people care about.

Thanks,

        M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
--
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/