netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/5 v2] net/cpsw: don't rely only on netif_running() to check which device is active

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: <51750EB9.6090009@linutronix.de>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:19:37 +0200
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5 v2] net/cpsw: don't rely only on netif_running() to
 check which device is active

On 04/22/2013 12:12 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
> 
> Yes, when interrupt is disabled in hardware then interrupt must be
> disabled.
> In my initial days i have verified it, CPSW doesn't allow any new
> interrupts to
> propagate  to arm if CPSW interrupt is disabled which is correct. CPSW irq
> signal is not directly connected to irq controller, it is connected via
> edge to
> level conversion so it is a kind of latched interrupt and so the
> interrupt has
> to be disabled in interrupt controller to disable the interrupt, else
> arm get
> blocked in CPSW ISR.
> 
> This behavior is not only in AM335x CPSW, it is as is from its previous
> versions in TI814x and TI8107.

And I don't see this on ES1.0 because they forgot to add the
edge-to-level converter?

> Regards
> Mugunthan V N

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html