linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver

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: <CAAhSdy2B3RTYKTsm+HrJfsC3dP3vZyT0VYi80h3pDVUxDCONwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:23:07 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:39:01AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> Previously submitted driver, registered separate irq_domain for
>> each CPU and local IRQs were registered as regular IRQs to IRQ
>> subsystem.
>> (Refer, https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg241230.html)
>
> And we reject that driver approach for good reason and are now
> doing the architectualy low-level irq handling in common code
> without any need whatsover to duplicate information in the
> privileged spec in DT.

In other words, the whole idea of separate RISCV local interrupt
controller driver was dropped due duplicate information in privilege
spec DT ??

Anyway, I think we should certainly have RISCV local interrupt
controller driver to manage local IRQs using Linux IRQ
subsystem. This gives us future flexibility in having more
per-CPU IRQ without changing any arch/riscv code.

Based on ARM examples which I had provided, it is very
likely that we will see more per-CPU IRQs in future. Some of
these will be device IRQs and some will be CPU specific
per-CPU IRQs (such as bus error interrupts).

Regards,
Anup