linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607052123060.4083@nanos>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 21:24:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
cc:	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 05/07/16 17:59, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> > Well, if you the domains should not be described in the DT and that they should
> > be somehow hardcoded into the drivers' code, it should not be hard indeed.
> 
> Hardcoded? No way. You simply implement a route allocator in your
> driver, assigning them as needed. And yes, if you have more than 24
> interrupts, they get muxed.

There is one caveat though. Under some circumstances (think RT) you want to
configure which interrupts get muxed and which not. We really should have that
option, but yes for anything which has less than 24 autorouting is the way to
go.

Thanks,

	tglx