linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v16 6/9] irqchip: Add RISC-V advanced PLIC driver for direct-mode

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

Message-Id: <20251120144311.5083-1-ni_liqiang@126.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 22:43:11 +0800
From: niliqiang <ni_liqiang@....com>
To: apatel@...tanamicro.com
Cc: ajones@...tanamicro.com,
	anup@...infault.org,
	atishp@...shpatra.org,
	bjorn@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	frowand.list@...il.com,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	maz@...nel.org,
	palmer@...belt.com,
	paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
	robh+dt@...nel.org,
	saravanak@...gle.com,
	sunilvl@...tanamicro.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de,
	hu.yuye@....com.cn,
	deng.weixian@....com.cn,
	ni.liqiang@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 6/9] irqchip: Add RISC-V advanced PLIC driver for direct-mode

> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-aplic-main.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-aplic-main.c
> +static const struct of_device_id aplic_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "riscv,aplic" },
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver aplic_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> +  .name  = "riscv-aplic",
> +  .of_match_table = aplic_match,
> + },
> + .probe = aplic_probe,
> +};
> +builtin_platform_driver(aplic_driver);

Dear Anup Patel and all concerned,

I am writing to inquire about the historical rationale behind defining the APLIC driver's
initialization priority using builtin_platform_driver in the current implementation.

In our environment, we are encountering an issue where this priority level causes ACPI-based PCIe
enumeration to be executed in the system_unbound_wq work queue. This parallel execution model
results in PCIe devices being enumerated in an arbitrary order rather than strictly following the
sequence defined in the ACPI DSDT table.

The random enumeration order is adversely affecting customer experience, particularly in scenarios
where device ordering is critical for proper system operation or application compatibility.

We are considering modifying the APLIC driver's initialization priority to ensure PCIe enumeration
occurs sequentially according to the DSDT specification. However, before proceeding with such
changes, we wanted to consult with you regarding:

1. Were there specific technical considerations that led to the current priority selection?
2. Are there any potential side effects or broader impacts that we might have overlooked?
3. Would you support such a priority adjustment, or do you have alternative suggestions to 
address the enumeration order issue?

We greatly appreciate your insights and expertise on this matter, as it will help us make an
informed decision while maintaining system stability and compatibility.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Liqiang