linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] irqchip/riscv-intc: Create domain using named fwnode

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, 21 Feb 2022 09:25:08 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>
Cc:     Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] irqchip/riscv-intc: Create domain using named fwnode

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:51:22 +0000,
Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com> wrote:
> 
> On 19 Feb 2022, at 09:32, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > But how do you plan to work around the fact that everything is currently
> > build around having a node (and an irqdomain) per CPU? The PLIC, for example,
> > clearly has one parent per CPU, not one global parent.
> > 
> > I'm sure there was a good reason for this, and I suspect merging the domains
> > will simply end up breaking things.
> 
> On the contrary, the drivers rely on the controller being the same
> across all harts, with riscv_intc_init skipping initialisation for all
> but the boot hart’s controller. The bindings are a complete pain to
> deal with as a result, what you *want* is like you have in the Arm
> world where there is just one interrupt controller in the device tree
> with some of the interrupts per-processor, but instead we have this
> overengineered nuisance. The only reason there are per-hart interrupt
> controllers is because that’s how the contexts for the CLINT/PLIC are
> specified, but that really should have been done another way rather
> than abusing the interrupts-extended property for that. In the FreeBSD
> world we’ve been totally ignoring the device tree nodes for the local
> interrupt controllers but for my AIA and ACLINT branch I started a few
> months ago (though ACLINT's now been completely screwed up by RVI
> politics, things have been renamed and split up differently in the past
> few days and software interrupts de-prioritised with no current path to
> ratification, so that was a waste of my time) I just hang the driver
> off the boot hart’s node and leave all the others as totally ignored
> and a waste of space other than to figure out the contexts for the PLIC
> etc.
> 
> TL;DR yes the bindings are awful, no there’s no issue with merging the
> domains.

I don't know how that flies with something like[1], where CPU0 only
gets interrupts in M-Mode and not S-Mode. Maybe it doesn't really
matter, but this sort of asymmetric routing is totally backward.

It sometime feels like the RV folks are actively trying to make this
architecture a mess... :-/

	M.

[1] CAAhSdy0jTTDzoc+3T_8uLiWfBN3AFCWj99Ayc-Yh8FBfzUY2sQ@...l.gmail.com

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.