linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/12] riscv: dts: allwinner: Add the D1 SoC base devicetree

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, 22 Aug 2022 13:56:27 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:     <andre.przywara@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <samuel@...lland.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>, <wens@...e.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] riscv: dts: allwinner: Add the D1 SoC base
 devicetree

On 22/08/2022 13:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 


>> Do you think this is worth doing? Or are you just providing an
>> example of what could be done?
> 
> Just some brainstorming...
> 
>> Where would you envisage putting these macros? I forget the order
>> of the CPP operations that are done, can they be put in the dts?
> 
> The SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ() macro should be defined in the
> ARM-based SoC.dtsi file and the RISC-V-based SoC.dtsi file.

Right, one level up but ~the same result.


>>> Nice! But it's gonna be a very large interrupt-map.
>>
>> I quite like the idea of not duplicating files across the archs
>> if it can be helped, but not at the expense of making them hard to
>> understand & I feel like unfortunately the large interrupt map is
>> in that territory.
> 
> I feel the same.
> Even listing both interrupt numbers in SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(na, nr)
> is a risk for making mistakes.
> 
> So personally, I'm in favor of teaching dtc arithmetic, so we can
> handle the offset in SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ().

Yup, in the same boat here. mayb I'll get bored enough to bite..