linux-kernel - Re: "memory" binding issues

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:	Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:37:14 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: "memory" binding issues

On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
> >> > address.
> >>
> >> No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
> >> needed to disambiguate two properties with the same name.
> >>
> >> If there are no ambiguities, then leaving off the unit address is much
> >> preferred.
> >
> > I disagree :-)
> 
> Well, good thing you've got your own arch to litter the device trees
> with unit specifiers in then. :)

Right :-) We tend to have multiple memory nodes on server anyway so it's
not a big deal.

> > Also this would be only true of our find_node_by_path was capable of
> > handling it, which it isn't. Thus you end up with generic code looking
> > for /memory and finding nothing ...
> 
> Yes, this should be fixed.

Right, the whole thing becomes mostly a non-issue once that's fixed. My
main objection isn't that ARM doesn't use unit address specifiers. My
objection is that the binding documents no unit address :-) It should
instead document the unit address with a note indicating that it can be
omitted if there is no ambiguity.

But first, do we have a volunteer to fix the path parsing code ? Also do
we *really* need to keep the path parsing code for fdt ? IE. It would be
annoying to have to duplicate that code for before and after
expansion...

Cheers,
Ben.

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


--
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/