linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/17] irqchip/riscv-rpmi-sysmsi: Add ACPI 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z6GVDuhNyjFQ4OKT@sunil-laptop>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 09:48:22 +0530
From: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Rahul Pathak <rpathak@...tanamicro.com>,
	Leyfoon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
	Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/17] irqchip/riscv-rpmi-sysmsi: Add ACPI support

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 11:38:28AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 02:19:05PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > From: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
> > 
> > Add ACPI support for the RISC-V RPMI system MSI based irqchip driver.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	if (!is_of_node(dev->fwnode)) {
> 
> Please, use dev_fwnode(),
> 
> But why do you need this? Can't the below simply become a no-op without
> this check?
> 
> > +		rc = riscv_acpi_get_gsi_info(dev->fwnode, &priv->gsi_base, &id,
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> > +					     &priv->nr_irqs, NULL);
> > +		if (rc) {
> > +			dev_err(dev, "failed to find GSI mapping\n");
> > +			return rc;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> ...
> 
> >  		 * then we need to set it explicitly before using any platform
> >  		 * MSI functions.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (is_of_node(dev->fwnode))
> > +		if (is_of_node(dev->fwnode)) {
> >  			of_msi_configure(dev, to_of_node(dev->fwnode));
> > +		} else {
> > +			struct irq_domain *msi_domain;
> > +
> > +			msi_domain = irq_find_matching_fwnode(imsic_acpi_get_fwnode(dev),
> > +							      DOMAIN_BUS_PLATFORM_MSI);
> 
> > +			if (msi_domain)
> 
> Hmm... The OF case above assumes this check is not needed. Why is it special
> otherwise?
> 
> > +				dev_set_msi_domain(dev, msi_domain);
> > +		}
> >  
> >  		if (!dev_get_msi_domain(dev))
> 
> Even here you have a check for NULL, so I believe the conditional is simply
> redundant.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> 
> > +	if (!acpi_disabled)
> 
> Why?
> 
> > +		acpi_dev_clear_dependencies(ACPI_COMPANION(dev));
> > +#endif
> 
> ...
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> 
> Drop this ugly ifdeffery along with ACPI_PTR(). They are more harmful than
> useful.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_rpmi_sysmsi_match[] = {
> > +	{ "RSCV0006", 0 },
> 
> Drop ', 0' part as it may be converted to a pointer in the future.
> 
Thanks!. Let me address your comments in next revision.

Thanks,
Sunil