linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox

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: <20190610110033.28d21d21@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:00:33 +0100
From:   Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@...s.arm.com>
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "jassisinghbrar@...il.com" <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        "sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        "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>,
        "van.freenix@...il.com" <van.freenix@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:32:49 +0000
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> wrote:

Hi Peng,

[ ... ]

> > > > +
> > > > +	irq_count = platform_irq_count(pdev);
> > > > +	if (irq_count == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > > +		return irq_count;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (irq_count && irq_count != val) {
> > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Interrupts not match num-chans\n");  
> > >
> > > Interrupts property does not match \"arm,num-chans\" would be more  
> > correct.
> > 
> > Given that interrupts are optional, do we have to rely on this?   
> 
> If there is interrupt property, the interrupts should match channel counts.
> 
> Do we actually
> > need one interrupt per channel?  
> 
> I thought about this, provide one interrupt for all channels.
> But there is no good way to let interrupt handlers know which
> channel triggers the interrupt. So I use one interrupt per channel.

Yeah, I was wondering about this as well. Seems like we need this indeed.
Just sounds wasteful, but I guess we don't expect many channels anyway,
normally.

Cheers,
Andre.