linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: ep93xx: enable SPARSE

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: <CAK8P3a2ZUgF0iH+BAw0ny-UwUYxoZ94apgYhD_vi4AiN5USwZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:53:16 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
Cc:     Hubert Feurstein <hubert.feurstein@...tec.at>,
        Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: ep93xx: enable SPARSE_IRQ

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:47 PM Alexander Sverdlin
<alexander.sverdlin@...il.com> wrote:
> On 20/10/2019 13:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> Ah, that makes sense. so all interrupt numbers need to
> >>> be shifted by a fixed number (e.g. 1) like we did for
> >>> other platforms (see attachment).
> >> Yes, the below patch resolved both GPIO and DMA issues.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Previous patch (selecting IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) is not
> >> required.
> >>
> >> If you re-spin all 3 ep93xx-relevant patches together, you can put my
> >> Tested-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
> >> on them.
> > Awesome, thanks for testing.
> >
> > I only remember sending two patches  for ep93xx:
> >  ARM: ep93xx: make mach/ep93xx-regs.h local
> >  ARM: ep93xx: enable SPARSE_IRQ
> >
> > and have added the Tested-by tag to them now. Is there a third one
> > I missed?
>
> The patch shifting the IRQ-numbering by one is a prerequisite for the two
> above patches, right?

Ah, now I see what you mean. I had folded that change into the sparse-irq
change, but you are right that it makes more sense as a separate
changeset before the other ones. Changing that now.

Thanks,

       Arnd