linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] Divorcing irqdomain and device

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: <561B1DB9.6010909@linaro.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:40:57 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
CC:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme@...a.org.uk>,
	Jake Oshins <jakeo@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Divorcing irqdomain and device_node

On 10/12/2015 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> [This patch series used to be called "Making the generic ACPI GSI
>> layer irqdomain aware", but as I've radically changed my approach to
>> this problem, I've decided to reset the counters...]
>>
>> The irqdomain code is not entierely ACPI friendly, as it has some
>> built-in knowledge of the device-tree. Nothing too harmful, but enough
>> to scare the ARM ACPI developpers which end up with their own version
>> of the square wheel. And some of the ramifications actually run deeper
>> than initially expected.
>>
>> This series adapts the irqdomain code to use 'struct fwnode_handle'
>> instead of 'struct device_node' as the identifier for a domain
>> (compatibility interfaces are of course added). It also introduces a
>> generic IRQ specifier that firmware interfaces (DT or ACPI) can
>> directly use to configure interrupts, and allow the ACPI GSI code to
>> be plugged into this.
>>
>> As examples, we convert the ARM GIC ACPI support to use irqdomains as
>> originally intended, and rework the MSI code to also move away from
>> using device nodes when using irqdomains.
>>
>> Overall, this gives us a way to use irqdomains on both DT and ACPI
>> enabled platforms, having very little changes made to the actual
>> drivers (other than the probing infrastructure). Because we keep the
>> flow of information between the various layers identical between ACPI
>> and DT, we immediately benefit from the existing infrastructure.
>>
>> This has been test-booted on Juno, is based on 4.3-rc4, and available at:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git irq/irq-domain-fwnode-v1
>>
>> Marc Zyngier (16):
>>    irqdomain: Use an accessor for the of_node field
>>    irqdomain: Convert irqdomain->of_node to fwnode
>>    irqdomain: Allow irq domain lookup by fwnode
>>    irqdomain: Introduce a firmware-specific IRQ specifier structure
>>    irqchip: Convert all alloc/xlate users from of_node to fwnode
>>    irqdomain: Introduce irq_create_fwspec_mapping
>>    irqdomain: Introduce irq_domain_create_{linear,tree}
>>    irqdomain: Add a fwnode_handle allocator
>>    acpi/gsi: Always perform an irq domain lookup
>>    acpi/gsi: Add acpi_set_irq_model to initialize the GSI layer
>>    irqchip/gic: Get rid of gic_init_bases()
>>    irqchip/gic: Switch ACPI support to stacked domains
>>    irqchip/gic: Kill the xlate method
>>    acpi/gsi: Cleanup acpi_register_gsi
>>    irqdomain: Introduce irq_domain_create_hierarchy
>>    irqdomain/msi: Use fwnode instead of of_node
>
> I really like this one way better than the previous attempts and I
> couldn't find any real issue when going through them with a fine comb.

Fully agree, this version removes the dependency on DT for ACPI.

>
> I'd like to get that into 4.4, so I have to ask for the opinion of
> ACPI folks. Having an ack on those patches would be nice.

I'm reviewing this patch set, and will have a test today.

Thanks
Hanjun
--
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/