linux-kernel - Generic DT binding for IPIs

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <561E2BE6.2090807@imgtec.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:18:14 +0100
From:	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@...tec.com>
To:	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	<marc.zyngier@....com>, <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Generic DT binding for IPIs

Hi,

This is an attempt to revive a discussion on the right list this time 
with all the correct people hopefully on CC.

While trying to upstream a driver, Thomas and Marc Zyngier pointed out 
the need for a generic IPI support in the kernel to allow driver to 
reserve and send ones. Hopefully my latest RFC patch will help to 
clarify what's being done.

     https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/13/227

We need a generic DT binding support to accompany that to allow a driver 
to reserve an IPI using this new mechanism.

MarcZ had the following suggestion:

     https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/24/628

Which in summary is

	mydevice@...00000 {
		interrupt-source = <&intc INT_SPEC 2 &inttarg1 &inttarg1>;
	};

	inttarg1: mydevice@...00000 {
		interrupt-sink = <&intc HWAFFINITY1>;
	};

	inttarg2: cpu@1 {
		interrupt-sink = <&intc HWAFFINITY2>;
	};

interrupt-sink requests to reserve an IPI that it will receive at 
HWAFFINITY cpumask. interrupt-source will not do any reservation. It 
will simply connect an IPI reserved by interrupt-sink to the device that 
will be responsible for generating that IPI. This description should 
allow connecting any 2 devices.
Correct me Marc if I got it wrong please.

I suggested a simplification by assuming that IPIs will only be between 
host OS and a coprocessor which would gives us this form which I think 
is easier to deal with

	coprocessor {
              interrupt-source = <&intc INT_SPEC COP_HWAFFINITY>;
              interrupt-sink = <&intc INT_SPEC CPU_HWAFFINITY>;
	}

interrupt-source here reserves an IPI to be sent from host OS to 
coprocessor at COP_HWAFFINITY. interrupt-sink will reserve an IPI to be 
received by host OS at CPU_HWAFFINITY. Less generic but I don't know how 
important it is for host OS to setup IPIs between 2 external 
coprocessors and whether it should really be doing that.

What do the DT experts think? Any preference or a better suggestion?

I tried to keep this short and simple, please let me know if you need 
more info or if there's anything that needs more clarification.

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/