linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for Tango interrupt controller

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]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:24:14 +0100
From:	Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
To:	Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for Tango interrupt
 controller

On 20/01/2016 17:10, Måns Rullgård wrote:

> Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
>>> +	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &ctl))
>>> +		panic("%s: failed to get reg base", node->name);
>>> +
>>> +	chip = kzalloc(sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +	chip->ctl = ctl;
>>> +	chip->base = base;
> 
> As I said before, this assumes the outer DT node uses a ranges
> property.  Normally reg properties work the same whether they specify an
> offset within an outer "ranges" or have a full address directly.  It
> would be easy enough to make this work with either, so I don't see any
> reason not to.

IIRC, I was told very early in the review process that the ranges prop
was mandatory. Lemme look for it... It was Arnd:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/444131/focus=444207

> You are missing a ranges property that describes what address
> space these addresses are in.
>
> 'ranges;' would be wrong here, as the interrupt controller is
> not a bus. If you have no ranges property, the bus is interpreted
> as having its own address space with no relation to the parent bus
> (e.g. an I2C bus uses addresses that are not memory mapped).
> 
> Just list the addresses that are actually decoded by child
> devices here.

Did I misunderstand?

Regards.