linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 20/25] irqchip/gic-v5: Add GICv5 PPI 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: <874ixwmpto.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 16:57:07 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Rob Herring
 <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will
 Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sascha Bischoff
 <sascha.bischoff@....com>, Timothy Hayes <timothy.hayes@....com>, "Liam R.
 Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 20/25] irqchip/gic-v5: Add GICv5 PPI support

On Wed, May 07 2025 at 14:52, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2025 14:42:42 +0100,
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, May 07 2025 at 10:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> > On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:00:31 +0100,
>> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> How does this test distinguish between LEVEL_LOW and LEVEL_HIGH? It only
>> >> tests for level, no? So the test is interesting at best ...
>> >
>> > There is no distinction between HIGH and LOW, RISING and FALLING, in
>> > any revision of the GIC architecture.
>> 
>> Then pretending that there is a set_type() functionality is pretty daft
>
> You still need to distinguish between level and edge when this is
> programmable (which is the case for a subset of the PPIs).

Fair enough, but can we please add a comment to this function which
explains this oddity.

Thanks,

        tglx