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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 10:02:30 -0700 From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com> Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: mvebu: split SolidRun CuBox into variants On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com> wrote: > On 05/27/2014 06:11 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33:29PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: >>> >>> As Mainlining effort for SolidRun CuBox has been carried out on the >>> Engineering Sample, the board DTS was reflecting this. Actually, >>> SolidRun CuBox comes in three different variants: Engineering Sample >>> (ES), >>> production with 1GB RAM (1G), and production with 2GB RAM (2G). >>> >>> Therefore, we split the current dove-cubox.dts into a common board >>> include >>> and one board dts for each of the above variants. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com> >>> --- > > [...] > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-1g.dts >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-1g.dts >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..eebd3f7ca7e6 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-1g.dts >>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ >>> +/dts-v1/; >>> + >>> +#include "dove-cubox.dtsi" >>> + >>> +/ { >>> + model = "SolidRun CuBox (1G)"; >>> + compatible = "solidrun,cubox-1g", "solidrun,cubox", >>> "marvell,dove"; >>> + >>> + memory { >>> + device_type = "memory"; >>> + reg = <0x00000000 0x40000000>; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + chosen { >>> + bootargs = "console=ttyS0,115200n8 earlyprintk"; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..513b6a68eba3 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/dove-cubox-2g.dts >>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ >>> +/dts-v1/; >>> + >>> +#include "dove-cubox.dtsi" >>> + >>> +/ { >>> + model = "SolidRun CuBox (2G)"; >>> + compatible = "solidrun,cubox-2g", "solidrun,cubox", >>> "marvell,dove"; >>> + >>> + memory { >>> + device_type = "memory"; >>> + reg = <0x00000000 0x80000000>; >> >> >> Do you anticipate any other differences between the 1G and the 2G? >> Otherwise, I'm inclined to just have a "solidrun,cubox". The bootloader >> should be setting the amount of RAM at boottime anyway. > > > No, there is no known difference between 1G and 2G except doubled RAM. > I'll squash the two back into a single non-ES dts. > > About the board specific compatibles, I am not so sure if we should > keep them at all. "solidrun,cubox" for all three variants should be > enough. checkpatch is already choking on every unknown compatible it > sees and documenting each individual board clearly doesn't scale well. Yeah, I agree -- but I'd say the scaling problem is with checkpatch. It's silly to require every single small board variant to be documented, especially in cases where the dts is self-documenting such as this. If anything, there should be a script that can be used to scrape this info and build the docs from compat+model info. It's not a bad idea to add a more specific compatible. if you think you want a separate model string, then you should probably have a separate compatible (but keep lower-order ones so that there's no difference from the kernel point of view which will just match the more generic one). -Olof -- 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