linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd

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: <CAMuHMdUf4JV=jUj-K3ojbhbx_zTedDuNf7Nng7z8CPW=eOgTRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:51:53 +0200
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> Sync to upstream dtc commit 53bf130b1cdd ("libfdt: simplify
>>> fdt_node_check_compatible()"). This adds the following commits from
>>> upstream:
>>>
>>> 53bf130 libfdt: simplify fdt_node_check_compatible()
>>> c9d9121 Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch
>>> 2e53f9d Catch unsigned 32bit overflow when parsing flattened device tree offsets
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> As usual, this is just an automated copy of upstream dtc into the kernel
>>> tree. The changeset is small enough that I have left it here.
>>>
>>> The main reason for this sync is to pick-up the new unit-address
>>> warnings.
>>
>> I gave this a try. Obviously it finds many abuses that should be fixed.
>>
>> However, I'm wondering about the following, where the unit-address is just
>> used to distinguish between multiple instances:
>>
>>     Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): Node /cache-controller@0 has a unit
>> name, but no reg property
>>         compatible = "cache";
>
> Just add a reg property. The values should probably match the MPIDR in
> some way (e.g. 0 and 100).

Is it correct to move the cache-controller nodes under the cpus node?
Else the reg properties don't match #address/size-cells?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds