linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] 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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 22:05:42 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: RISC-V Local Interrupt Controller Driver

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:07:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > Considering above, it is better to have a distinct irqchip and
>> > irq_domain for all local interrupts (just like this patch).
>>
>> If that's the future usage
>
> It's not, at least there has been no proposal for that so far, and I
> don't really think it is how the architecture was intended.
>
>> and that's what my impression was, under which I
>> changed my mind, yes, then having a domain model is certainly of advantage
>> especially when those things end up being different per SoC.
>
> And even if we went down the way of using the other bits it would
> be architectureal in the RISC-V spec - these are not available for
> vendor specific uses.

I am quite sure RISC-V spec does not restrict the use of other
local interrupts. Different CPU implementations can have their
own local interrupts.

Regards,
Anup