linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] arm64: dts: add Hi6220 mailbox node

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]

Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:54:49 +0100
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
	Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Bintian Wang <bintian.wang@...wei.com>,
	Yiping Xu <xuyiping@...ilicon.com>,
	Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"guodong.xu@...aro.org" <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
	Jian Zhang <zhangjian001@...ilicon.com>,
	Zhenwei Wang <Zhenwei.wang@...ilicon.com>,
	Haoju Mo <mohaoju@...ilicon.com>,
	Dan Zhao <dan.zhao@...ilicon.com>,
	"kongfei@...ilicon.com" <kongfei@...ilicon.com>,
	Guangyue Zeng <zengguangyue@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] arm64: dts: add Hi6220 mailbox node

On 26/08/15 02:25, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>> Option 1:
>>
>> 	memory@0 {
>> 		device_type = "memory";
>> 		reg = <0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x05e00000>,
>> 		      <0x00000000 0x05f00000 0x00000000 0x00eff000>,
>> 		      <0x00000000 0x06e00000 0x00000000 0x0060f000>,
>> 		      <0x00000000 0x07410000 0x00000000 0x38bf0000>;
>> 	};
>>
>> [snip]
 >>
>> Option 2:
>>
>> 	memory@0 {
>> 		device_type = "memory";
>> 		reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x40000000>;
>> 	};
>>
 >> [snip]
 >>
>
> I prefer the second one. From my view, memory node should only describe
> the hardware information of memory.

Haven't we already established that, to avoid the risk of UEFI 
applications accessing inappropriate memory locations, a (correct) UEFI 
implementation must use, and pass to the kernel, a memory map that looks 
like option 1?

That being the case why would we want u-boot (or any other similar 
bootloader) to pass a memory map that is gratuitously different to the 
one supplied by UEFI?


Daniel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/