linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: memory: da8xx-ddrctl: new 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: <60ae05f0-7719-f6c2-f725-97501f6fc219@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:16:58 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-drm <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: memory: da8xx-ddrctl: new driver



On 22/11/16 01:43, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> (And adding Sudeep since he becomes involved in this further
> down thread and at that point says he will re-work this
> proposed work around in a manner that is incorrect in a
> manner that is similar to this proposed work around.)
>
> On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:


[...]

>>  static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  {
>>  	const struct da8xx_ddrctl_config_knob *knob;
>> @@ -118,7 +130,7 @@ static int da8xx_ddrctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	setting = da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings();
>>  	if (!setting) {
>>  		dev_err(dev, "no settings for board '%s'\n",
>> -			of_flat_dt_get_machine_name());
>
> da8xx_ddrctl_get_board_settings() tries to match based on the "compatible"
> property in the root node.  The "model" property in the root node has
> nothing to do with the failure to match. So creating and then using
> da8xx_ddrctl_get_machine_name() to potentially report model is not useful.
>
> It should be sufficient to simply report that no compatible matched.
>

Agreed.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep