linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table
@ 2023-06-07  9:45 wangwudi
  2023-06-08  8:10 ` Marc Zyngier
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: wangwudi @ 2023-06-07  9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: liaochang1, wangwudi, Thomas Gleixner, Marc Zyngier

Only single level table is supported to the collection table, and only
one page is allocated.

Extend collection table to support more CPUs:
1. Recalculate the page number of collection table based on the number of
CPUs.
2. Add 2 level tables to collection table.
3. Add GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS macros.

It is noticed in an internal simulation research:
- the page_size of collection table is 4 KB
- the entry_size of collection table is	 16 Byte
- with 512 CPUs

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
---

ChangeLog:
v1-->v2:
	1. Support 2 level table
	2. Rewrite the commit log

 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c   | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h |  3 ++
 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
index 0ec2b1e1df75..573ef26ad449 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ struct its_node {
 #define is_v4(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VLPIS))
 #define is_v4_1(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VMAPP))
 #define device_ids(its)		(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_DEVBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
+#define collection_ids(its)	(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
 
 #define ITS_ITT_ALIGN		SZ_256
 
@@ -2626,6 +2627,10 @@ static int its_alloc_tables(struct its_node *its)
 			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
 							    ITS_MAX_VPEID_BITS);
 			break;
+		case GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION:
+			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
+							    order_base_2(num_possible_cpus()));
+			break;
 		}
 
 		err = its_setup_baser(its, baser, cache, shr, order, indirect);
@@ -3230,18 +3235,6 @@ static void its_cpu_init_collection(struct its_node *its)
 	its_send_invall(its, &its->collections[cpu]);
 }
 
-static void its_cpu_init_collections(void)
-{
-	struct its_node *its;
-
-	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
-
-	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry)
-		its_cpu_init_collection(its);
-
-	raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
-}
-
 static struct its_device *its_find_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
 {
 	struct its_device *its_dev = NULL, *tmp;
@@ -3316,6 +3309,51 @@ static bool its_alloc_table_entry(struct its_node *its,
 	return true;
 }
 
+static bool its_alloc_collection_table(struct its_node *its, struct its_baser *baser)
+{
+	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+	int cpu_ids = 16;
+
+	if (its->typer & GITS_TYPER_CIL)
+		cpu_ids = collection_ids(its);
+
+	if (!(ilog2(cpu) < cpu_ids)) {
+		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d out of Collection ID range for %dbits", cpu, cpu_ids);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	if (!its_alloc_table_entry(its, baser, cpu)) {
+		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d failed to allocate collection l2 table", cpu);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	return true;
+}
+
+static bool its_cpu_init_collections(void)
+{
+	struct its_node *its;
+	struct its_baser *baser;
+
+	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
+
+	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry) {
+		baser = its_get_baser(its, GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION);
+		if (!baser) {
+			raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
+			return false;
+		}
+
+		if (!its_alloc_collection_table(its, baser)) {
+			raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
+			return false;
+		}
+		its_cpu_init_collection(its);
+	}
+	raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
+	return true;
+}
+
 static bool its_alloc_device_table(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
 {
 	struct its_baser *baser;
diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
index 728691365464..35e83da8961f 100644
--- a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
+++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
@@ -400,6 +400,9 @@
 #define GITS_TYPER_PTA			(1UL << 19)
 #define GITS_TYPER_HCC_SHIFT		24
 #define GITS_TYPER_HCC(r)		(((r) >> GITS_TYPER_HCC_SHIFT) & 0xff)
+#define GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS_SHIFT	32
+#define GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS		GENMASK_ULL(35, 32)
+#define GITS_TYPER_CIL			(1ULL << 36)
 #define GITS_TYPER_VMOVP		(1ULL << 37)
 #define GITS_TYPER_VMAPP		(1ULL << 40)
 #define GITS_TYPER_SVPET		GENMASK_ULL(42, 41)
-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table
  2023-06-07  9:45 [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table wangwudi
@ 2023-06-08  8:10 ` Marc Zyngier
       [not found]   ` <82ea3d910d104fbb8df9b27585085895@hisilicon.com>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2023-06-08  8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: wangwudi; +Cc: linux-kernel, liaochang1, Thomas Gleixner

On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:45:13 +0100,
wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> 
> Only single level table is supported to the collection table, and only
> one page is allocated.
> 
> Extend collection table to support more CPUs:
> 1. Recalculate the page number of collection table based on the number of
> CPUs.
> 2. Add 2 level tables to collection table.
> 3. Add GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS macros.
> 
> It is noticed in an internal simulation research:
> - the page_size of collection table is 4 KB
> - the entry_size of collection table is	 16 Byte
> - with 512 CPUs
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
> ---
> 
> ChangeLog:
> v1-->v2:
> 	1. Support 2 level table
> 	2. Rewrite the commit log
> 
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c   | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h |  3 ++
>  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 0ec2b1e1df75..573ef26ad449 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ struct its_node {
>  #define is_v4(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VLPIS))
>  #define is_v4_1(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VMAPP))
>  #define device_ids(its)		(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_DEVBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
> +#define collection_ids(its)	(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
>  
>  #define ITS_ITT_ALIGN		SZ_256
>  
> @@ -2626,6 +2627,10 @@ static int its_alloc_tables(struct its_node *its)
>  			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
>  							    ITS_MAX_VPEID_BITS);
>  			break;
> +		case GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION:
> +			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
> +							    order_base_2(num_possible_cpus()));
> +			break;

Nice try, but no. See below.

>  		}
>  
>  		err = its_setup_baser(its, baser, cache, shr, order, indirect);
> @@ -3230,18 +3235,6 @@ static void its_cpu_init_collection(struct its_node *its)
>  	its_send_invall(its, &its->collections[cpu]);
>  }
>  
> -static void its_cpu_init_collections(void)
> -{
> -	struct its_node *its;
> -
> -	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> -
> -	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry)
> -		its_cpu_init_collection(its);
> -
> -	raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> -}
> -
>  static struct its_device *its_find_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
>  {
>  	struct its_device *its_dev = NULL, *tmp;
> @@ -3316,6 +3309,51 @@ static bool its_alloc_table_entry(struct its_node *its,
>  	return true;
>  }
>  
> +static bool its_alloc_collection_table(struct its_node *its, struct its_baser *baser)
> +{
> +	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	int cpu_ids = 16;
> +
> +	if (its->typer & GITS_TYPER_CIL)
> +		cpu_ids = collection_ids(its);
> +
> +	if (!(ilog2(cpu) < cpu_ids)) {
> +		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d out of Collection ID range for %dbits", cpu, cpu_ids);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!its_alloc_table_entry(its, baser, cpu)) {
> +		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d failed to allocate collection l2 table", cpu);
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +static bool its_cpu_init_collections(void)
> +{
> +	struct its_node *its;
> +	struct its_baser *baser;
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry) {
> +		baser = its_get_baser(its, GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION);
> +		if (!baser) {
> +			raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> +			return false;
> +		}

This looks wrong. ITSs that have a non-zero HCC field may not need
memory to back their collections at all, such as GIC500. There may not
even be a BASERn register holding the memory.

So this patch more or less *guarantees* to break most implementation
that are more than 5 year old.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table
       [not found]   ` <82ea3d910d104fbb8df9b27585085895@hisilicon.com>
@ 2023-06-09 10:02     ` wangwudi
  2023-06-09 13:10       ` Marc Zyngier
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: wangwudi @ 2023-06-09 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: linux-kernel, liaochang (A), Thomas Gleixner

Hi Marc,

在 2023/6/9 17:24, wangwudi 写道:
> 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Marc Zyngier [mailto:maz@kernel.org] 
> 发送时间: 2023年6月8日 16:10
> 收件人: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
> 抄送: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; liaochang (A) <liaochang1@huawei.com>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table
> 
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:45:13 +0100,
> wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>
>> Only single level table is supported to the collection table, and only 
>> one page is allocated.
>>
>> Extend collection table to support more CPUs:
>> 1. Recalculate the page number of collection table based on the number 
>> of CPUs.
>> 2. Add 2 level tables to collection table.
>> 3. Add GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS macros.
>>
>> It is noticed in an internal simulation research:
>> - the page_size of collection table is 4 KB
>> - the entry_size of collection table is 16 Byte
>> - with 512 CPUs
>>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
>> ---
>>
>> ChangeLog:
>> v1-->v2:
>> 	1. Support 2 level table
>> 	2. Rewrite the commit log
>>
>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c   | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h |  3 ++
>>  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c 
>> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> index 0ec2b1e1df75..573ef26ad449 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ struct its_node {
>>  #define is_v4(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VLPIS))
>>  #define is_v4_1(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VMAPP))
>>  #define device_ids(its)		(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_DEVBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
>> +#define collection_ids(its)	(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
>>  
>>  #define ITS_ITT_ALIGN		SZ_256
>>  
>> @@ -2626,6 +2627,10 @@ static int its_alloc_tables(struct its_node *its)
>>  			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
>>  							    ITS_MAX_VPEID_BITS);
>>  			break;
>> +		case GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION:
>> +			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
>> +							    order_base_2(num_possible_cpus()));
>> +			break;
> 
> Nice try, but no. See below.
> 
>>  		}
>>  
>>  		err = its_setup_baser(its, baser, cache, shr, order, indirect); @@ 
>> -3230,18 +3235,6 @@ static void its_cpu_init_collection(struct its_node *its)
>>  	its_send_invall(its, &its->collections[cpu]);  }
>>  
>> -static void its_cpu_init_collections(void) -{
>> -	struct its_node *its;
>> -
>> -	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
>> -
>> -	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry)
>> -		its_cpu_init_collection(its);
>> -
>> -	raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
>> -}
>> -
>>  static struct its_device *its_find_device(struct its_node *its, u32 
>> dev_id)  {
>>  	struct its_device *its_dev = NULL, *tmp; @@ -3316,6 +3309,51 @@ 
>> static bool its_alloc_table_entry(struct its_node *its,
>>  	return true;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static bool its_alloc_collection_table(struct its_node *its, struct 
>> +its_baser *baser) {
>> +	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> +	int cpu_ids = 16;
>> +
>> +	if (its->typer & GITS_TYPER_CIL)
>> +		cpu_ids = collection_ids(its);
>> +
>> +	if (!(ilog2(cpu) < cpu_ids)) {
>> +		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d out of Collection ID range for %dbits", cpu, cpu_ids);
>> +		return false;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (!its_alloc_table_entry(its, baser, cpu)) {
>> +		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d failed to allocate collection l2 table", cpu);
>> +		return false;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool its_cpu_init_collections(void) {
>> +	struct its_node *its;
>> +	struct its_baser *baser;
>> +
>> +	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry) {
>> +		baser = its_get_baser(its, GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION);
>> +		if (!baser) {
>> +			raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
>> +			return false;
>> +		}
> 
> This looks wrong. ITSs that have a non-zero HCC field may not need memory to back their collections at all, such as GIC500. There may not even be a BASERn register holding the memory.
> 
> So this patch more or less *guarantees* to break most implementation that are more than 5 year old.
>

For the collection table, if the HCC field is not zero, neither l1-table nor
l2-table table is allocated. How do you think?

> 	M.
> 
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table
  2023-06-09 10:02     ` wangwudi
@ 2023-06-09 13:10       ` Marc Zyngier
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2023-06-09 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: wangwudi; +Cc: linux-kernel, liaochang (A), Thomas Gleixner

On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 11:02:04 +0100,
wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> 在 2023/6/9 17:24, wangwudi 写道:
> > 
> > 
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Marc Zyngier [mailto:maz@kernel.org] 
> > 发送时间: 2023年6月8日 16:10
> > 收件人: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
> > 抄送: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; liaochang (A) <liaochang1@huawei.com>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > 主题: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table
> > 
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:45:13 +0100,
> > wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Only single level table is supported to the collection table, and only 
> >> one page is allocated.
> >>
> >> Extend collection table to support more CPUs:
> >> 1. Recalculate the page number of collection table based on the number 
> >> of CPUs.
> >> 2. Add 2 level tables to collection table.
> >> 3. Add GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS macros.
> >>
> >> It is noticed in an internal simulation research:
> >> - the page_size of collection table is 4 KB
> >> - the entry_size of collection table is 16 Byte
> >> - with 512 CPUs
> >>
> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> ChangeLog:
> >> v1-->v2:
> >> 	1. Support 2 level table
> >> 	2. Rewrite the commit log
> >>
> >>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c   | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h |  3 ++
> >>  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c 
> >> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> >> index 0ec2b1e1df75..573ef26ad449 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> >> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ struct its_node {
> >>  #define is_v4(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VLPIS))
> >>  #define is_v4_1(its)		(!!((its)->typer & GITS_TYPER_VMAPP))
> >>  #define device_ids(its)		(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_DEVBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
> >> +#define collection_ids(its)	(FIELD_GET(GITS_TYPER_CIDBITS, (its)->typer) + 1)
> >>  
> >>  #define ITS_ITT_ALIGN		SZ_256
> >>  
> >> @@ -2626,6 +2627,10 @@ static int its_alloc_tables(struct its_node *its)
> >>  			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
> >>  							    ITS_MAX_VPEID_BITS);
> >>  			break;
> >> +		case GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION:
> >> +			indirect = its_parse_indirect_baser(its, baser, &order,
> >> +							    order_base_2(num_possible_cpus()));
> >> +			break;
> > 
> > Nice try, but no. See below.
> > 
> >>  		}
> >>  
> >>  		err = its_setup_baser(its, baser, cache, shr, order, indirect); @@ 
> >> -3230,18 +3235,6 @@ static void its_cpu_init_collection(struct its_node *its)
> >>  	its_send_invall(its, &its->collections[cpu]);  }
> >>  
> >> -static void its_cpu_init_collections(void) -{
> >> -	struct its_node *its;
> >> -
> >> -	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> >> -
> >> -	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry)
> >> -		its_cpu_init_collection(its);
> >> -
> >> -	raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> >> -}
> >> -
> >>  static struct its_device *its_find_device(struct its_node *its, u32 
> >> dev_id)  {
> >>  	struct its_device *its_dev = NULL, *tmp; @@ -3316,6 +3309,51 @@ 
> >> static bool its_alloc_table_entry(struct its_node *its,
> >>  	return true;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static bool its_alloc_collection_table(struct its_node *its, struct 
> >> +its_baser *baser) {
> >> +	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >> +	int cpu_ids = 16;
> >> +
> >> +	if (its->typer & GITS_TYPER_CIL)
> >> +		cpu_ids = collection_ids(its);
> >> +
> >> +	if (!(ilog2(cpu) < cpu_ids)) {
> >> +		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d out of Collection ID range for %dbits", cpu, cpu_ids);
> >> +		return false;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	if (!its_alloc_table_entry(its, baser, cpu)) {
> >> +		pr_warn("ITS: CPU%d failed to allocate collection l2 table", cpu);
> >> +		return false;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return true;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static bool its_cpu_init_collections(void) {
> >> +	struct its_node *its;
> >> +	struct its_baser *baser;
> >> +
> >> +	raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> >> +
> >> +	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry) {
> >> +		baser = its_get_baser(its, GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION);
> >> +		if (!baser) {
> >> +			raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> >> +			return false;
> >> +		}
> > 
> > This looks wrong. ITSs that have a non-zero HCC field may not need
> > memory to back their collections at all, such as GIC500. There may
> > not even be a BASERn register holding the memory.
> > 
> > So this patch more or less *guarantees* to break most
> > implementation that are more than 5 year old.
> >
> 
> For the collection table, if the HCC field is not zero, neither
> l1-table nor l2-table table is allocated. How do you think?

What do I think? I've already said what I think, right under the 4
lines of code that break anything with a GIC500.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-06-09 13:10 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-06-07  9:45 [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic-v3: Extend collection table wangwudi
2023-06-08  8:10 ` Marc Zyngier
     [not found]   ` <82ea3d910d104fbb8df9b27585085895@hisilicon.com>
2023-06-09 10:02     ` wangwudi
2023-06-09 13:10       ` Marc Zyngier

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).