linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Extend GXBaby GIC node

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: <56D58014.30701@suse.com>
Date:	Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:42:12 +0100
From:	Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>
To:	Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
	linux-meson@...glegroups.com
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Nicolas Saenz <nicolassaenzj@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Extend GXBaby GIC node



On 01/03/16 12:18, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> Am 01.03.2016 um 12:01 schrieb Andre Przywara:
>> On 29/02/16 23:44, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Add GICH and GICV resources for HYP mode - guess based on other vendors.
>>
>> Do you know if the firmware allows the kernel to be entered in EL2
>> (which is the arm64 name for HYP)?
>> So can we run kvm?
>> If you have a booted kernel, can you grep for "EL2" and "kvm" in the dmesg?
>
> I do not have a rootfs yet (MMC v5 patches by Carlo are still waiting
> for review), but with this change the KVM driver initializes okay - the
> purpose of this patch!
>
>> Also you should merge this patch into 3/8, same for 8/8.
>
> If people confirm this is generally or specifically for this SoC correct
> then sure. So far 3/8 seems a safe subset for lack of public documentation.
>

Yes, this is generally correct. Actually without 8/8 you won't be able 
to run an initramfs.

Regards,
Matthias