linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 2/5] PCI: Create device tree node for bridge

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:50:35 -0700
From:   Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <max.zhen@....com>,
        <sonal.santan@....com>, <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 2/5] PCI: Create device tree node for bridge

Hi Rob,

Do you have any comment on this?

Thanks,

Lizhi

On 6/30/23 11:24, Lizhi Hou wrote:
>
> On 6/29/23 16:52, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> +            rp[i].child_addr[0] = j;
>>>> +    ret = of_changeset_add_empty_prop(ocs, np, "dynamic");
>>> It seems slightly confusing to use a "dynamic" property here when we
>>> also have the OF_DYNAMIC dynamic flag above.  I think they have
>>> different meanings, don't they?
>> Hum, what's the property for? It's new in this version. Any DT property
>> needs to be documented, but I don't see why we need it.
>
> This is mentioned in my previous reply for V9
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/af9b6bb3-a98d-4fb6-b51e-b48bca61dada@amd.com/ 
>
>
> As we discussed before, "interrupt-map" was intended to be used here.
>
> And after thinking it more, it may not work for the cases where ppnode
>
> is not dynamically generated and it does not have "interrupt-map".
>
> For example the IBM ppc system, its device tree has nodes for pci bridge
>
> and it does not have "interrupt-map".
>
> Based on previous discussions, OF_DYNAMIC should not be used here.
>
> So I think adding "dynamic" might be a way to identify the dynamically
>
> added node. Or we can introduce a new flag e.g OF_IRQ_SWIZZLING.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lizhi
>