linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V

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: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:11:46 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Damien.LeMoal@....com, juri.lelli@....com, anup@...infault.org,
        palmer@...ive.com, jeremy.linton@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mick@....forth.gr, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:

[...]

>
> I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
> series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
>

Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
it's ACPI only.

> What are these intended to apply to?
>

The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
part.

--
Regards,
Sudeep