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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56979E9D.3050202@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 21:11:57 +0800
From:	Rongrong Zou <zourongrong@...il.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, 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 2016/1/14 19:25, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that is what I want, both mapped and unmapped IO should
better be supported.

>
> 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.
>

Regars,
Rongrong