linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4] PCI: Xilinx NWL: Modifying irq chip for legacy interrupts

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: <8520D5D51A55D047800579B094147198263E03C4@XAP-PVEXMBX02.xlnx.xilinx.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2017 12:16:55 +0000
From:   Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@...inx.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "paul.gortmaker@...driver.com" <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
        "colin.king@...onical.com" <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "michal.simek@...inx.com" <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ravikiran Gummaluri <rgummal@...inx.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] PCI: Xilinx NWL: Modifying irq chip for legacy
 interrupts

> On 03/02/17 11:08, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> > - Adding mutex lock for protecting legacy mask register
> > - Few wifi end points which only support legacy interrupts, performs
> > hardware reset functionalities after disabling interrupts by invoking
> > disable_irq and then re-enable using enable_irq, they enable hardware
> > interrupts first and then virtual irq line later.
> > - The legacy irq line goes low only after DEASSERT_INTx is received.As
> > the legacy irq line is high immediately after hardware interrupts are
> > enabled but virq of EP is still in disabled state and EP handler is
> > never executed resulting no DEASSERT_INTx.If dummy irq chip is used,
> > interrutps are not masked and system is hanging with CPU stall.
> > - Adding irq chip functions instead of dummy irq chip for legacy
> > interrupts.
> > - Legacy interrupts are level sensitive, so using handle_level_irq is
> > more appropriate as it is masks interrupts until End point handles
> > interrupts and unmasks interrutps after End point handler is executed.
> > - Legacy interrupts are level triggered, virtual irq line of End Point
> > shows as edge in /proc/interrupts.
> > - Setting irq flags of virtual irq line of EP to level triggered at
> > the time of mapping.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharatku@...inx.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pci/host/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c |   45
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
> > b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
> > index 43eaa4a..e4605f9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
> > @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ struct nwl_pcie {
> >  	u8 root_busno;
> >  	struct nwl_msi msi;
> >  	struct irq_domain *legacy_irq_domain;
> > +	spinlock_t leg_mask_lock;
> >  };
> >
> >  static inline u32 nwl_bridge_readl(struct nwl_pcie *pcie, u32 off) @@
> > -395,11 +396,52 @@ static void nwl_pcie_msi_handler_low(struct irq_desc
> *desc)
> >  	chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);
> >  }
> >
> > +static void nwl_mask_leg_irq(struct irq_data *data) {
> > +	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(data->irq);
> > +	struct nwl_pcie *pcie;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	u32 mask;
> > +	u32 val;
> > +
> > +	pcie = irq_desc_get_chip_data(desc);
> > +	mask = 1 << (data->hwirq - 1);
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcie->leg_mask_lock, flags);
> 
> I've asked you to use a raw spinlock for a reason. If using RT, this gets turned
> into a sleeping lock...
> 
 In include/linux/spinlock.h 
#define spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags)                          \
do {                                                            \
        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(spinlock_check(lock), flags);     \
} while (0)

The above API invokes raw_spin_lock_irqsave know.
So is there any difference between raw_spin_lock_irqsave and spin_lock_irqsave ?

Thanks & Regards,
Bharat