| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:39:00 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc: shawn.guo@...aro.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux@....linux.org.uk, jason@...edaemon.net, olof@...om.net,
arnd@...db.de, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mark.rutland@....com, pawel.moll@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] irqchip: nvic: support routable irq domain ops
Hello Stefan,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 01:12:03AM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Add support for routable irq domain ops like the GIC interrupt
> controller provides. This is useful for asymmetrical multi-
> processor SoCs, such as Freescale Vybrid (VF6xx) which have
> a Cortex-M4 alongside a Cortex-A5 and a interrupt router to
> route the peripheral interrupts between them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/linux/irqchip/arm-nvic.h | 25 ++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-nvic.h
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c
> index 4ff0805..dbfb5be 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
> #define NVIC_MAX_IRQ ((NVIC_MAX_BANKS - 1) * 32 + 16)
>
> static struct irq_domain *nvic_irq_domain;
> +const struct irq_domain_ops *nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops;
Can you reshuffle the order of functions to make this forward
declaration unnecessary?
> asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry
> nvic_handle_irq(irq_hw_number_t hwirq, struct pt_regs *regs)
> @@ -49,6 +50,73 @@ nvic_handle_irq(irq_hw_number_t hwirq, struct pt_regs *regs)
> handle_IRQ(irq, regs);
> }
>
> +static int nvic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
> + irq_hw_number_t hw)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = irq_map_generic_chip(d, irq, hw);
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(ret))
if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops->map(d, irq, hw);
You could save the default implementations if you do:
if (nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops)
return nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops->map(d, irq, hw);
(maybe also check for map?)
> +}
> +
> +static void nvic_irq_domain_unmap(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq)
> +{
> + nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops->unmap(d, irq);
> +}
> +
> +static int nvic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
> + struct device_node *controller,
> + const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
> + unsigned long *out_hwirq,
> + unsigned int *out_type)
> +{
> + *out_hwirq = intspec[0];
> + *out_type = IRQ_TYPE_NONE;
If you demand from the callback to set this, you can just do
nvic_irq_domain_ops.xlate = new_callback;
not sure this is sensible though. Up to you.
> + return nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops->xlate(d, controller, intspec,
> + intsize, out_hwirq, out_type);
> +}
> +
> +struct irq_domain_ops nvic_irq_domain_ops = {
> + .map = nvic_irq_domain_map,
> + .unmap = nvic_irq_domain_unmap,
> + .xlate = nvic_irq_domain_xlate,
> +};
> +
> +/* Default functions for routable irq domain */
> +static int nvic_routable_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
> + irq_hw_number_t hw)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void nvic_routable_irq_domain_unmap(struct irq_domain *d,
> + unsigned int irq)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static int nvic_routable_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
> + struct device_node *controller,
> + const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
> + unsigned long *out_hwirq,
> + unsigned int *out_type)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct irq_domain_ops nvic_default_routable_irq_domain_ops = {
> + .map = nvic_routable_irq_domain_map,
> + .unmap = nvic_routable_irq_domain_unmap,
> + .xlate = nvic_routable_irq_domain_xlate,
> +};
> +
> +const struct irq_domain_ops *nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops =
> + &nvic_default_routable_irq_domain_ops;
> +
> static int __init nvic_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> struct device_node *parent)
> {
> @@ -70,7 +138,7 @@ static int __init nvic_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> irqs = NVIC_MAX_IRQ;
>
> nvic_irq_domain =
> - irq_domain_add_linear(node, irqs, &irq_generic_chip_ops, NULL);
> + irq_domain_add_linear(node, irqs, &nvic_irq_domain_ops, NULL);
> if (!nvic_irq_domain) {
> pr_warn("Failed to allocate irq domain\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-nvic.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-nvic.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..0e92a14
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-nvic.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +/*
> + * include/linux/irqchip/arm-nvic.h
Don't add the filename to a comment. There are more reliable means to
find it out than looking for that comment.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Stefan Agner
Is this indented differently to the paragraph below on purpose?
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +#ifndef __LINUX_IRQCHIP_ARM_NVIC_H
> +#define __LINUX_IRQCHIP_ARM_NVIC_H
> +
> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_NVIC
> +extern const struct irq_domain_ops *nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops;
> +static inline void __init register_routable_domain_ops
> + (const struct irq_domain_ops *ops)
> +{
> + nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops = ops;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_ARM_NVIC */
> +
> +#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
> +#endif /* __LINUX_IRQCHIP_ARM_NVIC_H */
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists