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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:29:54 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> Cc: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>, Benoit Masson <benoitm@...enite.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Benoit Masson <yahoo@...enite.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>, Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...glemail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: mvebu: Added dts defintion for Lenovo Iomega ix4-300d NAS > > Well about the issue, we patch the device tree for the i2c quirk only for > > the openblock AX3. > > Ahhh, that's right. I need to slow down and dig a bit more. :( > > > If I remember well it was because the device tree was already written > > for this board before we found there was an issue with the A0 version > > of the CPU. > > No, it's because we didn't think any manufacturers would be silly enough > to use the a0 in production. That assumption worked out well. :-P > > > The rule was that for new boards then they have to set the marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c > > compatible string. I also didn't expect that we found "new" product using the A0 version. > > > > We have 3 options now: > > > > - remove the check on the openblock AX3 board and always try to apply the quirck for A0 version > > - add a check for this new board in the mvebu_dt_init function > > - let the compatible string marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c in this dts > > > > I would prefer the option 1 but I fear that Arnd would prefer the 2 other options. > > I like option 1 and 3. Option 3 is a *correct* description of the > hardware, and should be done. Option 1 makes Linux user-friendly for boards > that are exactly the same, but changed out SoC stepping mid-production. I would prefer 1 as well. It is the SoC that has the problem, not the board. So we should not be making the quirk board specific. Andrew -- 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