| 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
| ||
|
Message-id: <534F305C.2050407@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:37:32 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
inki.dae@...sung.com, sw0312.kim@...sung.com,
hyunhee.kim@...sung.com, yj44.cho@...sung.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] ARM: EXYNOS: Add Exynos3250 SoC ID
Hi Tomasz,
On 04/17/2014 12:53 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Chanwoo,
>
> On 14.04.2014 07:13, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 05:39 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> On 11.04.2014 08:32, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2014 10:46 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:37:12PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>>>> index 5992b8d..3d808f6b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id;
>>>>>> #define S5PV210_CPU_ID 0x43110000
>>>>>> #define S5PV210_CPU_MASK 0xFFFFF000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#define EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID 0xE3472000
>>>>>> +#define EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> #define EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID 0x43210000
>>>>>> #define EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID 0x43220000
>>>>>> #define EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID 0xE4412200
>>>>>> @@ -68,6 +71,7 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5p6440, S5P6440_CPU_ID, S5P64XX_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5p6450, S5P6450_CPU_ID, S5P64XX_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5pc100, S5PC100_CPU_ID, S5PC100_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5pv210, S5PV210_CPU_ID, S5PV210_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> +IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos3250, EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK)
>>>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4210, EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4212, EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>>>>>> @@ -126,6 +130,12 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>>>>>> # define soc_is_s5pv210() 0
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS3250)
>>>>>> +# define soc_is_exynos3250() is_samsung_exynos3250()
>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>> +# define soc_is_exynos3250() 0
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, I think we have too much code littered with soc_is_<foo>() going
>>>>> on, so please try to avoid adding more for this SoC. Especially in cases where
>>>>> you just want to bail out of certain features where we might already have
>>>>> function pointers to control if a function is called or not, such as the
>>>>> firmware interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you prefer dt helper function such as following function instead of new soc_is_xx() ?
>>>> - of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250")
>>>>
>>>> If you are OK, I'll use of_machine_is_compatible() instead of soc_is_xx().
>>>
>>> First of all, there is still a lot of code in mach-exynos/ using the soc_is_xx() macros, so having some SoCs use them and other SoCs use of_machine_is_compatible() wouldn't make the code cleaner.
>>>
>>> For now, I wouldn't mind adding soc_is_exynos3250(), but in general such code surrounded with if (soc_is_xx()) blocks should be reworked to use something better, for example function pointers, as Olof suggested.
>>
>> I thought 'function pointers' method instead of soc_is_xxx() macro as following two case:
>> I need more detailed explanation/example of "for example function pointers, as Olof suggested." sentence.
>>
>> [case 1]
>> Each Exynos SoC has other function pointers according to compatible name of DT.
>>
>> For example, arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
>>
>> static const struct firmware_ops exynos_firmware_ops = {
>> .do_idle = exynos_do_idle,
>> .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr,
>> .cpu_boot = exynos_cpu_boot,
>> };
>> static const struct firmware_ops exynos3250_firmware_ops = {
>> .do_idle = exynos_do_idle,
>> .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4212_set_cpu_boot_addr,
>> .cpu_boot = exynos3250_cpu_boot,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct firmware_ops exynos4212_firmware_ops = {
>> .do_idle = exynos_do_idle,
>> .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4212_set_cpu_boot_addr,
>> .cpu_boot = exynos4212_cpu_boot,
>> };
>>
>> struct secure_firmware {
>> char *name;
>> const struct firmware_ops *ops;
>> } exynos_secure_firmware[] __initconst = {
>> { "samsung,secure-firmware", &exynos_firmware_ops },
>> { "samsung,exynos3250-secure-firmware", &exynos3250_firmware_ops },
>> { "samsung,exynos4212-secure-firmware", &exynos4212_firmware_ops },
>> };
>>
>
> This is probably the right solution. Another would be to detect which firmware ops to use by matching root node with particular SoC compatible strings.
>
OK, I'll modify firmware.c using this method on separated patch apart from Exynos3250 patchset.
But, I want to implment it after completed Exynos3250 patchset.
Because Exynos3250 patchset needs other patch such as following patch:
Following patches has not yet to be confirmed or merged.
[PATCH Resend] ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM address through DT
- http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg323011.html
[PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: EXYNOS: Map PMU address through DT
- http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg316013.html
Thanks for your review.
Best regards,
Chanwoo Choi
--
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