linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Do not require 'msi-map-mask'

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, 14 Feb 2024 14:38:57 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Do not require
 'msi-map-mask'

On 14/02/2024 13:54, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 01:01:20PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 17:50, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> Whether the 'msi-map-mask' property is needed or not depends on how the
>>> MSI interrupts are mapped and it should therefore not be described as
>>> required.
>>
>> I could imagine that on all devices the interrupts are mapped in a way
>> you need to provide msi-map-mask. IOW, can there be a Qualcomm platform
>> without msi-map-mask?
> 
> I don't have access to the documentation so I'll leave that for you guys
> to determine. I do note that the downstream DT does not use it and that
> we have a new devicetree in linux-next which also does not have it:
> 
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240125-topic-sm8650-upstream-pcie-its-v1-1-cb506deeb43e@linaro.org
> 
> But at least the latter looks like an omission that should be fixed.

Hm, either that or the mask for sm8450 was not needed as well. Anyway,
thanks for explanation, appreciated!


Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof