linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: irq-mvebu-odmi: new driver for platform MSI on Marvell 7K/8K

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: <3474575.KNRGuJK4d6@wuerfel>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:27:48 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: irq-mvebu-odmi: new driver for platform MSI on Marvell 7K/8K

On Thursday 18 February 2016 17:16:23 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:08:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 16:58:54 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > +- marvell,spi-base     : List of GIC base SPI interrupts, one for each
> > > +                         ODMI frame. Those SPI interrupts are 0-based,
> > > +                         i.e marvell,spi-base = <128> will use SPI #96.
> > > +                         See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > > +                         for details about the GIC Device Tree binding.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why are these not just in an 'interrupts' property as we do for other
> > nested irqchips?
> 
> I modeled this after the GICv2m bindings. I think the reason is that if
> we were to use the interrupts property, we should be listing *all*
> interrupts of the parent interrupt controller we are using. Which would
> be quite painful when your ODMI interrupt controller uses 32 interrupts
> of the parent controller (I think for the GICv2m, it's even more).
> 
> I.e, we currently say:
> 
>         marvell,spi-base = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
> 
> but in fact we are using 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
> 137, etc. until 159.
> 
> If you think
> 
>         interrupts = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
> 
> is still correct, then why not. But I believe this might be confusing,
> as people will think that we are only using interrupts 128, 136, 144
> and 152, and not 129, 133, 147 or 158.
> 

Ok, got it. Your current version seems fine then.

	Arnd