linux-kernel - Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dmaengine: sun6i: make gate bit in sun8i's DMA engines a common quirk

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: <29B06690-5F41-4417-8894-7B09ECAA578B@aosc.io>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:53:34 +0800
From:   Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.io>
To:     Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
        Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.xyz>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dmaengine: sun6i: make gate bit in sun8i's DMA engines a common quirk



于 2017年6月15日 GMT+08:00 上午11:54:08, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> 写到:
>On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:04:39AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:15:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> > > SoC info is in compatible, so there's no reason to make it a
>property.
>> > 
>> > that's why it would need to be optional for the SoC's that needs
>these..
>> 
>> There's nothing optional about that behaviour, it's mandatory for the
>> SoC that need it, and useless on the SoC that don't.
>
>And why should kernel put strings for each hw behaviour. I am expecting
>DT
>to tell me if this SoC is a special case or not and kernel shall handle
>accordingly

I don't think this kind of behavior should be described in DT.

Rob, do you agree?

>
>> Plus, that would require changing the DT binding, which isn't
>> something we can do.
>
>Any reason why bindings can't change..? I though this was support for
>new
>SoC...

This is a behavior that exists on a SoC that is already
supported (A23/A33).