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: <874jzcyrjl.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 12:03:42 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V18 00/13] irqchip: Add LoongArch-related irqchip drivers

On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:51:19 +0100,
Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> 
> LoongArch is a new RISC ISA, which is a bit like MIPS or RISC-V.
> LoongArch includes a reduced 32-bit version (LA32R), a standard 32-bit
> version (LA32S) and a 64-bit version (LA64). LoongArch use ACPI as its
> boot protocol LoongArch-specific interrupt controllers (similar to APIC)
> are already added in the ACPI Specification 6.5(which may be published in
> early June this year and the board is reviewing the draft).
> 
> Currently, LoongArch based processors (e.g. Loongson-3A5000) can only
> work together with LS7A chipsets. The irq chips in LoongArch computers
> include CPUINTC (CPU Core Interrupt Controller), LIOINTC (Legacy I/O
> Interrupt Controller), EIOINTC (Extended I/O Interrupt Controller), PCH-PIC
> (Main Interrupt Controller in LS7A chipset), PCH-LPC (LPC Interrupt Controller
> in LS7A chipset) and PCH-MSI (MSI Interrupt Controller).

[...]

OK, that's 4 versions in quick succession, so I suggest we stop the
bikeshedding and focus on getting this actually merged.

I'm going to stick this in a branch and throw it at -next. Any change
will need to go on top of it, no rebasing. If anything that breaks
cannot be fixed easily, I will drop the branch.

Thanks,

	M.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ