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]
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:12:52 +0530
From:   Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        KISHON VIJAY ABRAHAM <kishon@...com>,
        "linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI: dwc: pci-dra7xx: Fix legacy IRQ handling



On Saturday 09 December 2017 12:05 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:43:11AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>> Legacy INTD IRQ handling is broken on dra7xx due to fact that driver
>> uses hwirq in range of 1-4 for INTA, INTD whereas IRQ domain is of size
>> 4 which is numbered 0-3. Therefore when INTD IRQ line is used with
>> pci-dra7xx driver following warning is seen:
>>
>>        WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:342 irq_domain_associate+0x12c/0x1c4
>>        error: hwirq 0x4 is too large for dummy
>>
>> Fix this by using pci_irqd_intx_xlate() helper to translate the INTx 1-4
>> range into the 0-3 as done in other PCIe drivers.
>>
>> Also, iterate over all the INTx bits and call their respective IRQ
>> handlers before clearing the status register.
> 
> It seems to me that you are fixing two bugs with one patch and therefore
> I would ask you to split it in two or explain to me why we should
> consider lumping them together.
> 

Ok, I will split the patch into two in v2.


-- 
Regards
Vignesh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists