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 21:00:06 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> CC: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, "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 On 03/29/2017 08:38 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 07:52:48PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> 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? > > I am speaking about merging MBIgen AND ITS patches via IRQCHIP and > ACPI/IORT for ARM64, that's why I replied to this patch. I do not > think that's feasible to split patches in two separate branches > without having a dependency between them. > > Sure, the last three patches can go via IRQCHIP but that was not > my question :) Sorry, I misunderstood that :( Since it's not feasible to split patches, the best way I got is that we get Marc's ack then merge it. Marc, Lorenzo, is this OK? Thanks Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists