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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:44:38 -0500 From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> To: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 1/4] Document nexus nodes/specifier remapping On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org> wrote: > Document the generic nexus node properties. This can be used by > any specifier that conforms to #<specifier>-cells where they > want to support remapping phandle lists through nexus nodes. This > is similar to interrupt remapping, but slightly different because > we don't consider unit addresses when doing mappings. This is > mostly a copy/paste of the interrupt specification, with the unit > address parts removed and generalized to any specifier. There's > also the addition of a pass through mechanism to make things more > compact if desired in the mapping table. Sorry for the slow response. I'm still wondering how/if we can merge interrupts as part of this (both the spec and parsing implementation). Could we simply require that #address-cells is 0 or do we even need this distinction? If the usecase is connectors, then we should typically be able to set #address-cells to 0. Perhaps you could have a custom PCI connector with additional signals and the slot/connector node would have the PCI address. In this case, we would have #address-cells, but having them and ignoring the address cells via the mask would still work. Also, I don't see any issue if we allow the -map-pass-thru property for interrupts. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org> > --- > > I still need to write the blurb about what this is all about, but > I wanted to send this out now to get early feedback. Some starting > points: > > 1) Replace child/parent with incoming/outgoing everywhere? Parent/child is more common, so I think that's fine. > > 2) Make a pretty picture to describe remapping phandle+specifiers > similar to the interrupt hierarchy diagram? Pictures are always nice, but I don't think required. > > 3) Come up with some better name than <specifier>? Kernel-doc uses <list> > but I'm not sure that's any better. specifier seems fine to me. Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists