linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] RISC-V: Support per-hart timebase-frequency

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:   Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:     atish.patra@....com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        anup@...infault.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, shorne@...il.com
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 09/11] RISC-V: Support per-hart timebase-frequency

On Fri, 03 Aug 2018 05:33:57 PDT (-0700), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 03:19:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> On 8/2/18 4:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
>>>
>>> Follow the updated DT specs and read the timebase-frequency from the
>>> CPU 0 node.
>>>
>>
>> However, the DT in the HighFive Unleashed has the entry at the wrong place.
>>
>> Even the example in github also at wrong place.
>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-device-tree-doc/pull/8/commits/2461d481329c55005fcbe684f0d6bdb3b7f0a432
>>
>> DT should be consistent between Documentation and the one in the hardware.
>> I can fix them in bbl & submit a bbl patch. But I am not sure if that's an
>> acceptable way to do it.
>
> I'll need to have comments from Palmer and/or someone else at SiFive
> here.  Personally I really don't care where we document the timebase,
> as this patch supports both locations anywhere.  For now I'll just update
> the commit log to state that more explicitly.

You're welcome to submit a BBL patch to make this all match, but from my 
understanding of the device tree spec putting timebase-frequency in either 
place should be legal so it's not a critical fix.  That said, it's better to 
have them match than not match.