linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 13/14] dt-bindings: arm-gic: Add documentation for Tegra210 AGIC

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, 27 Apr 2016 16:34:53 +0100
From:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"Pawel Moll" <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 13/14] dt-bindings: arm-gic: Add documentation for
 Tegra210 AGIC


On 22/04/16 12:22, Mark Rutland wrote:

[snip]

>>>> I am not sure if it will be popular to add Tegra specific clock names
>>>> to the GIC DT docs. However, in that case, then possibly the only
>>>> alternative is to move the Tegra AGIC driver into its own file and
>>>> expose the GIC APIs for it to use. Then we could add our own DT doc
>>>> for the Tegra AGIC as well (based upon the ARM GIC).
>>>
>>> The clock-names don't seem right to me, as they sound like provide names
>>> or global clock line names rather than consumer-side names ("clk" and
>>> "apb_pclk").
>>
>> Yes that would be fine with me.
> 
> Ok; if we model the apb_pclk as owned by the AXI switch (which it is),
> then there's no change for the GIC binding, short of the additional
> compatible string as an extension of "arm,gic-400", as we already model
> that clock in the GIC-400 binding.

I have been re-working this based upon the feedback received. In the GIC
driver we have the following definitions ...

 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(gic_400, "arm,gic-400", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(arm11mp_gic, "arm,arm11mp-gic", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(arm1176jzf_dc_gic, "arm,arm1176jzf-devchip-gic", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a15_gic, "arm,cortex-a15-gic", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a9_gic, "arm,cortex-a9-gic", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a7_gic, "arm,cortex-a7-gic", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
 IRQCHIP_DECLARE(pl390, "arm,pl390", gic_of_init);


If I have something like the following in my dts ...

	agic: interrupt-controller@...f9000 {
		compatible = "nvidia,tegra210-agic", "arm,gic-400";
		...
	};

The problem with this is that it tries to register the interrupt controller
early during of_irq_init() before the platform driver has chance to
initialise it. To avoid this I got rid of the "nvidia,tegra210-agic" string
and added the following for the platform driver ...

static const struct of_device_id gic_match[] = {
       { .compatible = "arm,arm11mp-gic-pm",    .data = &arm11mp_gic_data   },
       { .compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic-pm", .data = &cortexa15_gic_data },
       { .compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic-pm",  .data = &cortexa9_gic_data  },
       { .compatible = "arm,gic400-pm",         .data = &gic400_data        },
       { .compatible = "arm,pl390-pm",          .data = &pl390_data         },
       {},
};

It is not ideal as now we have a *-pm variant of each compatible string :-(

Another option would be to add some code in gic_of_init() to check for the
presence of a "clocks" node in the DT binding and bail out of the early 
initialisation if found but may be that is a bit of a hack.

Mark, what are your thoughts on this?

Cheers
Jon