linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] Documentation: add sbsa-gwdt driver documentation

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: <20151030190514.GD30791@leverpostej>
Date:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:05:14 +0000
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>,
	Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Wei Fu <tekkamanninja@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Vipul Gandhi <vgandhi@...eaurora.org>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>,
	Jon Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] Documentation: add sbsa-gwdt driver documentation

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:53:24PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 01:35 PM, Fu Wei wrote:
> >>I think maybe Mark was asking why WS1 is optional, not the WS1
> >My answer is for "why WS1 is optional"!
> >
> >>>interrupt.  Maybe you can reword the documentation to make is clear
> >>>that
> >I didn't say : "only the*interrupt*  for WS1 is optional."
> 
> WS1 itself is not optional.  The spec says that WS0 and WS1 are
> separate events, and doesn't saying anything about either being
> optional.  The *interrupt* for WS1, however, is optional.

This is a moot point. The distintion between the signal and the
interrupt doens't matter here.

I was only asking why the interrupt was optional, and it seems per the
spec it's expected to be handed to an agent at a higher exception level.

That implies that the OS should only care about WS0, assuming that I've
understood correctly.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
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/