linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: sleep: byteswap data for big-endian

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, 14 Jan 2014 18:44:09 -0500
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
CC:	Linaro Kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Taras Kondratiuk <taras.kondratiuk@...aro.org>,
	Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky@...aro.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
	Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: sleep: byteswap data for big-endian

On Tuesday 14 January 2014 04:13 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
> <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
>>
>>> ok.. some sort of Linaro thing about which I have no background about
>>> - but dont really care in this context.
>>>
>> Nothing related Linaro. Its just that platforms are supporting ARM BE
>> mode and Linaro folks had working patches for Panda. So I suggested
>> to get them on the lists.
> 
> I tend to think -> is this with OFF mode and CPUidle completely
> working? All context save and restore works with this? on HS and GP
> devices with BE mode builds? works on SDP4430,60 variations,
> considered reuse with AM43xx which could use parts of that logic?
> 
> I mean to indicate that terms like "works on panda" tends always to be relative.
>
Fair enough.
 
> It is nice to see it as a proof of concept, but I'd hate to see some
> dead code lying around in kernel and folks blindly following suit and
> introducing macros for new assembly for a feature that in practice
> just one group of folks care about and creates additional burden for
> rest of folks trying to keep that functionality going as we jump from
> one "device tree" style churn to another "framework"? Not to mean that
> good features should be kept away.. but personally, I could not find
> convincing arguments in this case..
> 
I haven't looked at patch myself but as you pointed out if it adds
dead code and makes the code un-readable then probably that something
we shouldn't merge.

Regards,
Santosh
--
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/