linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: rockchip: remove ROCKCHIP_SOFTRST_HIWORD

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: <1853369.vjRjVRadgx@diego>
Date:	Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:29:03 +0200
From:	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...nel-upstream.org>
Cc:	Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: rockchip: remove ROCKCHIP_SOFTRST_HIWORD_MASK for rockchip platform

Hi Shawn,

Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016, 11:35:32 schrieb Shawn Lin:
> 在 2016/6/3 9:25, Xing Zheng 写道:
> > On 2016年06月03日 08:54, Shawn Lin wrote:
> >> I check all the Socs including RK2928/3000/3066/3028X/316X/312X/
> >> 3190/3188/3228/3368/3399/3036, and find all of them use high 16-bit
> >> as write mask. Obviously we don't need ROCKCHIP_SOFTRST_HIWORD_MASK
> >> any more(actually I don't know why we need it before). This patch
> >> removes it to simplify the code and save a little cpu cycle when calling
> >> assert or deassert callback.
> > 
> > In my opinion, this flag can be used for compatibility, we can not
> > ensure that our SoCs will not use the 32bit SOFTRST_CONs in future.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> Thanks for sharing your thought.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure, but I'm 99% sure about we won't let
> it happened. You have to consider the backward compatibility
> rather than the future ones. If you got a chip with 10 bit, or
> 8bit for SOFTRST_CONX, so how do you wanna deal with it?
> Should we now add  ROCKCHIP_SOFTRST_X_BIT_MASK?  :)

older SoCs like the rk2818 (ARM9-based) do actually use 32bit softrst 
registers. And if I ever get my hands on one of those, I'd actually try to 
support it :-) .

So I'd really like to keep the flag.

Heiko