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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:28:18 -0700
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
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 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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.

It is ACPI only in the production configuration.  I suppose we could 
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and 
non-trivial.

> 
>> 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.
> 

On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would 
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and 
ACPI).  I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a 
sanity check on actual hardware.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.