linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ARM64 LPC: update binding doc

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: <1452770755.31558.13.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:25:55 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Rongrong Zou <zourongrong@...il.com>, arnd@...db.de,
	catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com
Cc:	lijianhua@...wei.com, lixiancai@...wei.com, linuxarm@...wei.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, minyard@....org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ARM64 LPC: update binding doc

On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 12:42 +0800, Rongrong Zou wrote:

> > Right, and the "compatible" property should be something like the
> > specific implementation of the LPC bridge. For example, ibm,power8-
> > lpc
> > in my case. Not something generic.
> > 
> > Maybe we could allow for a generic one if the LPC is directly MMIO
> > mapped via the ranges property.
> 
> It is not directly MMIO mapped actually.

I know yours is not. But some are. My point is that we should have a
binding that is either completely specific to your ARM64 LPC or we
should have a generic LPC binding with provisions for implementation
specific stuff such as ARM64 or POWER8 which are both not MMIO mapped.

I go for the latter.

So "ranges" if you are mapped, otherwise "reg", and in the latter case,
the compatible property should be much more specific like it is for P8,

  .../...

> The big problem is we do not want the "ranges" property, but we can't
> get resource if the property is absent, you could see discussion at
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/11/631.

That's fixable. I missed the discussion but I'll have a look tomorrow.

Cheers
Ben.