linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] irqchip: irq-mips-gic: export gic_send

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: <55E6F8DE.7040308@imgtec.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:25:50 +0100
From:	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@...tec.com>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Lisa Parratt <Lisa.Parratt@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] irqchip: irq-mips-gic: export gic_send_ipi

On 09/02/2015 12:53 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/09/15 11:48, Qais Yousef wrote:
>> It's worth noting in the light of this that INT_SPEC should be optional
>> since for hardware similar to mine there's not much to tell the
>> controller if it's all dynamic except where we want the IPI to be routed
>> to - the INT_SPEC is implicitly defined by the notion it's an IPI.
> Well, I'd think that the INT_SPEC should say that it is an IPI, and I
> don't believe we should omit it. On the ARM GIC side, our interrupts are
> typed (type 0 is a normal wired interrupt, type 1 a per-cpu interrupt,
> and we could allocate type 2 to identify an IPI).

I didn't mean to omit it completely, but just being optional so it's 
specified if the intc needs this info only. I'm assuming that INT_SPEC 
is interrupt controller specific. If not, then ignore me :-)

>
> But we do need to identify it properly, as we should be able to cover
> both IPIs and normal wired interrupts.

I'm a bit confused here. What do you mean by normal wired interrupts? I 
thought this DT binding is only to describe IPIs that needs reserving 
and routing. What am I missing?

Thanks,
Qais
--
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/