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: <5282DD1C.4000307@nvidia.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:59:56 +0900
From:	Alex Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
CC:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/7] ARM: tegra: add support for Trusted Foundations

On 11/13/2013 05:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 03:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> Register the firmware operations for Trusted Foundations if the device
>> tree indicates it is active on the device.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/common.c
>
>>   void __init tegra_init_early(void)
>>   {
>> +	of_register_trusted_foundations();
>>   	tegra_cpu_reset_handler_init();
>>   	tegra_apb_io_init();
>>   	tegra_init_fuse();
>
> Your other bugfix patch for 3.13 moved tegra_cpu_reset_handler_init().
> Should the call to of_register_trusted_foundations() move with it when
> this is applied, or should it just stay right at the start of
> tegra_init_early()? Either way is fine; just let me know which way to
> fix up the conflict when this gets applied.

I rebased on -next and left it at the start of tegra_init_early(). Even 
though at the moment the only requirement is that the call is made 
before tegra_cpu_reset_handler_init(), it seems to make sense to get rid 
of firmware-related initialization as early as possible.

Btw, this patchset is still based on the 3.12 code, before common.c got 
renamed to tegra.c, so you will have a problem here as well (sorry about 
that). The conflict is easy to resolve, but if you want me to send you a 
properly rebased version, just let me know.

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ