linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] RISC-V: ACPI: Add external interrupt controller support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:18:44 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, 
	Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@...el.com>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>, 
	Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>, 
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] RISC-V: ACPI: Add external interrupt
 controller support

Hi,

[cut]

> >
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I found that _DEP is better than fw_devlink for ACPI since it works
> during scan itself. For ex: the way PCI host bridges are scanned in
> ACPI, PNP device handling. While some hacky solution could be done like
> I did in v3 (pnp_irq() changes), _DEP way seems much better.
>
> So, we decided to go with your suggested approach and defined namespace
> devices for PLIC and APLIC required to create dependency mechanism.
> However, there are concerns that every device will have to add _DEP now
> and whether it is intended for this use case. Also, actually the
> dependency is already available in the form of GSI number mapping.
> Hence, instead of explicit dependency, we would like to create implicit
> dependency. So, I will send RFC v4 series with those changes. Please
> help us with feedback. If you could provide quick high level go/no-go,
> that will help us a lot since we need to finalize the spec whether to
> mandate _DEP or not.
>
> I request you to provide some high level feedback in the RFC v4 I am
> going to send.

I will, thank you!