linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tty: pl011: Work around QDF2400 E44 stuck BUSY bit

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: <87lgtg7l1c.fsf@on-the-bus.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 08 Feb 2017 15:35:27 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        shankerd@...eaurora.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Neil Leeder <nleeder@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tty: pl011: Work around QDF2400 E44 stuck BUSY bit

On Wed, Feb 08 2017 at  2:09:12 pm GMT, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
>>> No, only Kryo and Falkor V1 based SOCs have this problem.  Falkor V2
>>> will have this fixed.  We intend to revert these fixes after Falkor
>>> V1 SOCs are no longer supported.
>>
>> Supported by whom?
>
> Qualcomm.
>
>> Generally, once something's upstreamed we expect it to remain supported.
>
> The V1 SOCs are technically pre-production, but still in wide use and
> it will be a while before they are all replaced by V2 SOCs.  It's only
> because of the "ugliness" of the erratum and its work-around that we
> want to git rid of it when we can.

Interesting. How will you guarantee that nobody will ever want to run a
mainline kernel on this box after a certain date? Self-destruct timer?
;-)

As someone who runs mainline on HW that exceeded its "sell-by" date by a
few decades, I'm genuinely interested.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.