linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC

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]

Message-ID: <20151020172654.GC4943@leverpostej>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:26:55 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Brijesh Singh <brijeshkumar.singh@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	dougthompson@...ssion.com, mchehab@....samsung.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:57:44PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > > This second property doesn't describe the hardware in any way. It should
> > > be runtime-configurable and dpesn't belong in the DT.
> > > 
> > > Regardless, the binding is wrong. This is in no way specific to AMD
> > > Seattle, and per the code is actually used to imply the presence of a
> > > Cortex-A57 feature. No reference to AMD Seattle belongs in the DT
> > > binding (with the exception of the example, perhaps), nor in the driver.
> > > 
> > > NAK while this pretends to be something that it isn't. At minimum, you
> > > need to correctly describe the feature you are trying to add support
> > > for.
> > > 
> > I will remove AMD specific string in compatibility field and make
> > the poll-delay-msec optional. Will also expose this as module
> > parameter as you suggested below.
> 
> Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality?

The driver is entirely A57 generic.

> If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple
> vendors can use it?

Yes.

> How fast and how ugly can something like that become?

Not sure I follow.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
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/