linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v10 1/7] dt-bindings: PCI: Add definition of PCIe WAKE# irq and PCI irq

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: <20171102215501.GD28152@atomide.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:55:01 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, shawn.lin@...k-chips.com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, dianders@...omium.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v10 1/7] dt-bindings: PCI: Add definition of PCIe
 WAKE# irq and PCI irq

* Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> [171101 21:07]:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:45:17PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > IMO, since you're trying to augment a standardized binding, you need to
> > be a lot clearer here. I expect you should mention the existing standard
> > (that devices may optionally include an 'interrupts' property that
> > represents the legacy PCI interrupt) and how you're augmenting it (that
> > additional interrupts can be supported optionally, but they require a
> > corresponding 'interrupt-names' property).
> 
> There's an additional complication that I'd guess the wakeup is 
> typically a GPIO line and hence a different parent. We have 2 options 
> there. The first is interrupts-extended which is generally implicitly 
> supported (i.e. we only document interrupts). The second is we already 
> have interrupt-map if we have legacy interrupts and can map to different 
> parents. For this to work, we'd have to use a number >4 for the wakeup 
> interrupts.

The wakeup interrupt can also be a separate always on interrupt
controller in addition to GPIOs. Anyways, the interrupts-extended
binding works well for these. And the interrupt-names we seem
to have standardized on are "irq" and "wakeup".

Regards,

Tony