linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 06/12] dt-bindings: irqchip: Introduce TISCI Interrupt router bindings

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:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:54:24 +0530
From:   Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/12] dt-bindings: irqchip: Introduce TISCI Interrupt
 router bindings



On 11/04/19 8:30 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> * Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com> [190410 04:15]:
>> +Example:
>> +--------
>> +The following example demonstrates both interrupt router node and the consumer
>> +node(main gpio) on the AM654 SoC:
>> +
>> +main_intr: interrupt-controller0 {
>> +	compatible = "ti,sci-intr";
>> +	ti,intr-trigger-type = <1>;
>> +	interrupt-controller;
>> +	interrupt-parent = <&gic500>;
>> +	#interrupt-cells = <3>;
>> +	ti,sci = <&dmsc>;
>> +	ti,sci-dst-id = <56>;
>> +	ti,sci-rm-range-girq = <0x1>;
>> +};
> 
> To me it seems there should not be too many of these interrupt
> controller nodes for each SoC. Maybe you're already planning on
> doing it, but I suggest that you just add more specific compatibles
> and then look up the dst-id from a mapping table in the driver
> similar to what patch 04/12 in this series is already doing.
> 
> That way you don't need to add custom TI specific (firmware
> defined) device tree properties listed above ;)

I am tired of arguing on this. We did close this topic in the previous version
of this series. Why do you want to keep re visiting the same. Sorry, I am not
going change unless I receive a Nack from Marc or Rob.

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh