linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mtd: nand: gpmi: add i.MX 7 SoC support

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: <20170502111758.53e9a959@bbrezillon>
Date:   Tue, 2 May 2017 11:17:58 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Han Xu <xhnjupt@...il.com>
Cc:     Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@...escale.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>, Han Xu <han.xu@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, LW@...o-electronics.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mtd: nand: gpmi: add i.MX 7 SoC support

Hi Han,

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:29:16 -0500
Han Xu <xhnjupt@...il.com> wrote:

> >>  
> >>>>> But then, adding the type would only require 2-3 lines of change if I
> >>>>> add it to the GPMI_IS_MX6 macro...  
> >>>>
> >>>> Then at least add a comment because using type = IMX6SX right under
> >>>> gpmi_data_mx7d can trigger some head-scratching. And put my R-B on V2.  
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, I mentioned it in the commit message.
> >>>
> >>> I think rather then adding a comment it is cleaner to just add IS_IMX7D
> >>> and add it to the GPMI_IS_MX6 macro. That does not need a comment since
> >>> it implicitly says we have a i.MX 7 but treat it like i.MX 6 and it is a
> >>> rather small change. Does that sound acceptable?  
> >>
> >> Sure, that's even better, thanks.
> >>
> >> btw isn't there some single-core mx7 (mx7s ?) , maybe we should just go
> >> with mx7 (without the d suffix). I dunno if it has GPMI NAND though, so
> >> maybe mx7d is the right thing to do here ...
> >>  
> >
> > There is a Solo version yes, and it has GPMI NAND too. However, almost
> > all i.MX 7 IPs have been named imx7d by NXP for some reason (including
> > compatible strings, see grep -r -e imx7 Documentation/), so I thought I
> > stay consistent here...  
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> Yes, there should be a i.MX7 Solo version with one core fused out. IMO, can
> we use QUIRK to distinguish them rather than SoC name. I know I also sent
> some patch set with SoC Name but I prefer to use QUIRK now.

Not sure what this means. Are you okay with Stefan's v2?

Regards,

Boris