linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 2/3] ARM: msm: Add support for APQ8074 Dragonboard

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]

Message-Id: <50877C70-6066-4E87-9DEA-9F29D098525B@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:33:53 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
To:	Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/3] ARM: msm: Add support for APQ8074 Dragonboard


On Sep 26, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:

> On 9/26/2013 11:05 AM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
>> On 9/26/2013 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8074-dragonboard.dts
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
>>> +/include/ "qcom-msm8974.dtsi"
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> +    model = "Qualcomm APQ8074 Dragonboard";
>>> +    compatible = "qcom,apq8074-dragonboard", "qcom,apq8074";
>>> +};
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..f04b643
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
>>> +/dts-v1/;
>>> +
>>> +/include/ "skeleton.dtsi"
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> +    model = "Qualcomm MSM8974";
>>> +    compatible = "qcom,msm8974";
>>> +    interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>>> +
>>> +    soc: soc { };
>>>>> We should have a unit address here:
>>>>> 
>>>>>      soc: soc@...BAR {
>>>>> 
>>>>> also, split out the curly braces so any future patches do have to muck with that.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    };
>>>>> 
>>>> Im not sure I understand the reasoning behind the unit address for soc ?
>>> Its fairly standard practice and there is a fair amount of discussion about the lack of a unit address for memory nodes.
>>> 
>> That still doesn't really answer anything :) - and I couldn't find any discussions about this either.
>> I don't see anybody in upstream adding an address to soc except sun.
>> What is that address supposed to be for - what does it mean ?
>> The soc is way of encapsulating meaningful blocks  for the particular SoC.
> 
> I see the mail from Stephen Warren for adding a check stating that
> 
> "ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any
> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name
> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if
> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a
> unit address."
> 
> The soc node we have does not have a reg property ?

Not 100% sure what people will decide on this.  There are a number of examples on the PPC side (arch/powerpc/boot/dts) that are soc@...R, but they don't typically have "reg" properties at the soc level.

Let's go ahead w/o the unit address (as you have it) for now.

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/