linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt: mailbox: Add TI Message Manager

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: <CABb+yY3cUU6VAkev57sQB7vLGPAwh0YEAb3unsZ+h=Tvm5Nr2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 21:05:20 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc:	Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@...com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt: mailbox: Add TI Message Manager

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2016 10:14 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>

>>>> +
>>> I think we should get rid of consumer specifics from the provider node...
>>
>>
>> If I get rid of the consumer nodes, how do you propose I describe the rx
>> queue interrupt(s) in the msmgr dt node (Every Rx queue will have it's
>> own interrupt - and it cannot be reverse computed from queue ID, proxy ID)?
>>
> One option is to have controller driver construct interrupt name from
> queue and proxy ids like
>
> msgmgr: msgmgr@...00000 {
>    ....
>      interrupt-names = "irq_5_2", "irq_0_0";     /* irq_<queue-id>_<proxy-id> */
>      interrupts = <GIC_SPI 324 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
>                         <GIC_SPI 325 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
> }
>
> and have the consumer specify queue and proxy ids in mboxes property like
>  pmmc {
>        ....
>        mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>        mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0>
>                           <&msgmgr 5 2>;
> };
>
However if the queue+proxy+interrupt tuple is a hard property of a
channel (which it seems to me now), then probably your original scheme
of chile node phandle is just as fine.

Thanks