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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists