linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip/gic-v2m: Add support for multiple MSI frames

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: <561E6322.6030601@amd.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:13:54 -0500
From:	Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC:	Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip/gic-v2m: Add support for multiple MSI
 frames

Hi Marc,

On 10/14/2015 6:27 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> The GICv2m driver is so far limited to a single MSI frame, but
> nothing prevents an implementation from having several of them.
>
> This patch expands the driver to enumerate all frames, keeping
> the first one as the canonical identifier for the MSI domains.
>
> Tested-by: Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> ---
>   drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>   1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c
> index bf9b3c0..87f8d10 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c
> @@ -50,8 +50,12 @@
>   /* List of flags for specific v2m implementation */
>   #define GICV2M_NEEDS_SPI_OFFSET		0x00000001
>
> +static LIST_HEAD(v2m_nodes);
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(v2m_lock);
> +
>   struct v2m_data {
> -	spinlock_t msi_cnt_lock;
> +	struct list_head entry;
> +	struct device_node *node;

Would it be better if we use struct fwnode_handle * here instead. I 
noticed that later on, this is also used as of_node_to_fwnode(v2m->node) 
in several places. Also, this would need to change anyways when we 
introducing ACPI support (see here https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/13/846).

Thanks,
Suravee

--
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/