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  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:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:07:19 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <>
To:	Rob Herring <>
Cc:	Pali Rohár <>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <>,
	Sebastian Reichel <>,
	Pavel Machek <>,
	"" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: /proc/cpuinfo: Use DT machine name when possible

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:27:16PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:46:19PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Pali Rohár <> wrote:
> >> > Also I still did not know why DT kernel does not report Revision
> >> > number which is passed by bootloader via atags. Any idea?
> >>
> >> Probably because no one cared until now and revision info for every
> >> SOC is different. I would like to see revision info set in the DT in a
> >> standard way and remove the various SOC specific kernel
> >> implementations.
> >
> > Except... that's not what it is.  What that revision field was originally
> > invented for was the Netwinder to indicate the _platform_ revision.
> Okay. DT describes the platform, so having a top-level revision in the
> DT could be similar, but...
> >
> > From what I've seen, almost everyone else sets this to zero in their
> > boot loaders - it is /very/ rarely used.  However, I think OMAP (ab)uses
> > it by putting the SoC revision into it at kernel boot time.  That's
> > not what it is supposed to be used for.
> it could suffer the same abuse as the ATAG.

I think the (ab)use I mentioned above has been eliminated (it was
being used for the SoC revision).  It's worth grepping for system_rev
to find where it's used now, and it's looks like it's all platform

> The problem with soc-device is it is optional and at the whim of the
> platform to add. Adding it also causes the the platform devices to
> change paths because people make the soc device the bus parent.

It's got to be optional, but anyone with a SoC should be strongly
encouraged to use it, especially when converting to DT - again, this
is probably one of those numerous "missed opportunities" since the
DT conversion fundamentally changes the names of all platform
devices in that heirarchy.

I'm tempted to say that we went through that device name change,
and as far as I saw, there was not one complaint about those devices
changing names.  So, I suspect it isn't that big a deal to encourage
SoCs to make use of this.

> Sysfs
> paths to devices are not considered part of the ABI, but still this is
> a silly reason to change the path. If we want soc-device to be used,
> then it should always exist and have a default version.

So what do we do on systems which aren't a SoC?  Make up some random
information for the SoC stuff?  That's just wrong.

FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists