linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 03/11] drivers: soc: hisi: Add support for Hisilicon Djtag driver

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: <4657586.c5MJoh65Ux@wuerfel>
Date:   Tue, 08 Nov 2016 16:08:58 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Anurup M <anurupvasu@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>, anurup.m@...wei.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        shyju.pv@...wei.com, gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com,
        john.garry@...wei.com, will.deacon@....com, linuxarm@...wei.com,
        xuwei5@...ilicon.com, zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com,
        sanil.kumar@...ilicon.com, shiju.jose@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/11] drivers: soc: hisi: Add support for Hisilicon Djtag driver

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 7:16:30 PM CET Anurup M wrote:
> >>>> If these are backwards compatible, just mark them as compatible in DT,
> >>>> e.g. hip06 can use
> >>>>
> >>>>    compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-cpu-djtag-v1", "hisilicon,hip05-cpu-djtag-v1";
> >>>>
> >>>> so you can tell the difference if you need to, but the driver only has to
> >>>> list the oldest one here.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the difference between the cpu and io djtag interfaces?
> >> On some chips like hip06, the djtag version is different for IO die.
> > In what way? The driver doesn't seem to care about the difference.
> There is  a difference in djtag version of CPU and IO die (in some chips).
> For ex: in hip06 djtag for CPU is v1 and for IO is v2.
> so they use different readwrite handlers djtag_readwrite_(v1/2).
> 
> +       /* for hip06(D03) cpu die */
> +       { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-cpu-djtag-v1",
> +               .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v1 },
> +       /* for hip06(D03) io die */
> +       { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-io-djtag-v2",
> +               .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v2 },
> 
> 
> For the same djtag version, there is no difference in handling in the 
> driver.

Right, but my point was about the compatibility with the older chips
using the same IP block, marking the ones as compatible that actually
use the same interface.

I also see that the compatible strings have the version included in
them, and you can probably drop them by requiring them only in the
fallback:

	compatible = "hisilicon,hip05-cpu-djtag", "hisilicon,djtag-v1";
	compatible = "hisilicon,hip05-io-djtag", "hisilicon,djtag-v1";
	compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-cpu-djtag", "hisilicon,djtag-v1";
	compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-io-djtag", "hisilicon,djtag-v2";
	compatible = "hisilicon,hip07-cpu-djtag", "hisilicon,djtag-v2";
	compatible = "hisilicon,hip07-io-djtag", "hisilicon,djtag-v2";

We want to have the first entry be as specific as possible, but
the last (second) entry is the one that can be used by the driver
for matching. When a future hip08/hip09/... chip uses an existing
interface, you then don't have to update the driver.

	Arnd