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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:44:38 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <>
To:     Stephen Boyd <>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 1/4] Document nexus nodes/specifier remapping

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <> 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 <>
> ---
> 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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists