linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family

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]

Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:12:43 -0500
From:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@...ihalf.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the
>> > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit
>> > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing
>> > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398
>> > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first.
>>
>> But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the
>> string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if
>> the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398
>> without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here.
>
> I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a
> strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395
> will also apply to 398.

Yes, I get that, but that is only meaningful if you want to run an OS
that is only aware of 395 on a 398 SoC/board (though I'd guess the 390
compat is enough for that). Otherwise, that property is not really
meaningful as the additional nodes are enough to handle what is the
superset.

I would agree both are fine if both chips are in fact the same die,
just fused or packaged differently. I've seen a lot of chips that are
supposed to be sub/supersets of each other, but have different errata
lists because they are different die.

Rob