linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V1 1/4] memory: tegra: Add support for mc interrupts

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:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:06:54 +0530
From:   Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@...dia.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        <thierry.reding@...il.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <Snikam@...dia.com>, <vdumpa@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 1/4] memory: tegra: Add support for mc interrupts



On 1/12/2022 1:59 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On 11/01/2022 19:45, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>> Implement new structure for function related to mc interrupts.
> 
> s/mc/MC/
> 
Okay, I'll update these.
>> Move handle_irq into this structure.
>> Add support for clearing interrupts.
> 
> The subject says you are adding support for MC interrupts, so before
> they were not supported at all?
> 
Interrupt handling and error logging is not supported from Tegra186
onward. So the patches are for adding supported interrupts and logging
them from Tegra186 onward. But you are right, subject/commit message is
misleading. I'll update it in next version.

> Here you also mention clearing of interrupts - another new feature. One
> commit for refactoring (adding new structure) which does not change
> functionality, second commit for adding new feature.
> > Different question - why do you need new structure for just two function
> pointers? Why these different IRQ handling functions cannot be in
> tegra_mc_ops? To me, it's unnecessary code complexity (plus performance
> impact, but it's not that important). If this is really, really needed,
> please describe the rationale in the commit message.
>
clearing_interrupts() won't be needed. As pointed by Dmitry, we should
be logging early boot MC interrupts as well instead of clearing them.
Also, I'll keep handling irq inside tegra_mc_ops instead of adding new
structure.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@...dia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c       | 14 +++++++++++---
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/mc.h       |  1 +
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra114.c |  1 +
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124.c |  2 ++
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra194.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20.c  |  6 +++++-
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210.c |  1 +
>>   drivers/memory/tegra/tegra30.c  |  1 +
>>   include/soc/tegra/mc.h          |  7 ++++++-
>>   10 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof