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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:52:48 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, Ma Jun <majun258@...wei.com>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>, huxinwei@...wei.com, yimin@...wei.com, linuxarm@...wei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/15] ACPI: platform-msi: retrieve dev id from IORT Hi Lorenzo, On 03/29/2017 06:14 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > Hi Hanjun, Marc, > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:40:05PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> >> >> For devices connecting to ITS, the devices need to identify themself >> through a dev id; this dev id is represented in the IORT table in named >> component node [1] for platform devices, so this patch adds code that >> scans the IORT table to retrieve the devices' dev id. >> >> Leveraging the iort_node_map_platform_id() IORT API, add a new function >> call, iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() and use it in its_pmsi_prepare() to allow >> retrieving dev id in ACPI platforms. >> >> [1]: https://static.docs.arm.com/den0049/b/DEN0049B_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf >> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> >> [lorenzo.pieralisi@....com: rewrote commit log] >> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> >> Tested-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> >> Tested-by: Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com> >> Tested-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> >> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> >> Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c | 3 ++- >> include/linux/acpi_iort.h | 5 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > To simplify merging ACPI/IRQCHIP changes via different trees it > would be good to split this patch; I am not sure what's the best > way of handling it though given that we would end up in a merge > ordering dependency anyway (ie we can create an empty stub > for iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() but that would create a dependency > between ARM64 and irqchip trees anyway). The first 12 patches for ACPI platform MSI and later 3 patches for mbigen have no "physical" dependency, which means they can be merged and compiled independently, they only have functional dependency only. We already had SAS, XGE, USB and even UART drivers depend on the mbigen ACPI support, so I don't think the dependency of ACPI platform MSI and mbigen patches cares much if those two parts are merged in one merge window, even they are merged independently via different tree. > > Please let me know what's your preferred way of handling this. So in my opinion, they can be merged independently via ARM64 and irqchip tree with no ordering dependency, is it OK? Thanks Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists