linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ARM: EXYNOS: PM: replace EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR

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:	Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:16:40 +0200
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
To:	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
Cc:	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
	Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ARM: EXYNOS: PM: replace EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_*
 macros by static inlines


Hi,

On Monday, June 02, 2014 03:05:40 PM Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02.06.2014 14:35, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > Replace EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR and EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG macros
> > by exynos_boot_vector_addr() and exynos_boot_vector_flag() static
> > inlines.
> > 
> > This patch shouldn't cause any functionality changes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
> > Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> > index 87c0d34..cf09383 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> > @@ -166,12 +166,23 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
> >  			S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN);
> >  }
> >  
> > -#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
> > -			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> > -			(sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
> > -#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
> > -			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> > -			(sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
> > +static inline void __iomem *exynos_boot_vector_addr(void)
> > +{
> > +	if (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1)
> > +		return S5P_INFORM7;
> > +	else if (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0)
> > +		return sysram_base_addr + 0x24;
> > +	return S5P_INFORM0;
> 
> I know this is not strictly related to this patch, but isn't a check
> whether the SoC is Exynos4210 also needed, before comparing the revision
> with Exynos4210-specific values?

Yes, it is needed but other SoCs need to be verified that they do not
rely on a buggy code (to not introduce regressions).  This is of course
outside a scope of the current patchset.

> Otherwise looks good.
> 
> Best regards,
> Tomasz

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

--
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/