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  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:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:52:24 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <>
To:     Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] irqchip, gicv3-its: Add device tree binding for
 hisilicon 161010801 erratum


I see this wasn't Cc'd to LAKML, unlike the cover letter, and patch 3
(which isn't threaded against the cover letter).

Please use a consistent Cc list, with patches in-reply to the cover

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:42:56PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> This erratum describes the limitation of certain HiSilicon platforms
> to support the SMMU mappings for MSI transactions and on those platforms
> the MSI transactions has to be bypassed by SMMU. The IIDR register of the
> GICv3 ITS on these platforms are not properly populated to differentiate
> the hardware, hence describe it in device tree.
> Signed-off-by: shameer <>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.txt         | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.txt
> index 4c29cda..84af301 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.txt
> @@ -75,6 +75,12 @@ These nodes must have the following properties:
>  - reg: Specifies the base physical address and size of the ITS
>    registers.
> +Optional
> +- hisilicon,erratum-161010801 : A boolean property. Indicates the presence of
> +  erratum 161010801, which says that these platforms doesn't support  SMMU
> +  mapping for MSI transactions and those transactions has to be bypassed
> +  by SMMU.

What exactly is meant by "doesn't support SMMU mapping" here? What
precisely is the problem in HW?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists