linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: NSP: Correct RAM amount for BCM958625HR board

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

Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:18:08 -0400
From:	Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: NSP: Correct RAM amount for BCM958625HR board

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
> On 07/13/2016 11:18 AM, Jon Mason wrote:
>> The BCM958625HR board has 2GB of RAM available.  Increase the amount
>> from 512MB to 2GB and add the device type to the memory entry.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625hr.dts | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625hr.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625hr.dts
>> index 4239e58..66c658a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625hr.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625hr.dts
>> @@ -47,7 +47,8 @@
>>       };
>>
>>       memory {
>> -             reg = <0x60000000 0x20000000>;
>> +             device_type = "memory";
>> +             reg = <0x60000000 0x40000000>;
>
> That's just one 1GB, did you intend to provide 0x8000_0000 instead here?

Good catch!  I'll fix that up in v2 (and add a "Fixes:" referencing
the original patch).

Thanks,
Jon

> --
> Florian