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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 13:37:15 +0000 From: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com> To: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, Guido Günther <agx@...xcpu.org> CC: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>, Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>, Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] soc: imx: Try harder to get imq8mq SoC revisions On 22.05.2019 16:40, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 22.05.2019, 13:30 +0000 schrieb Leonard Crestez: >> On 22.05.2019 16:13, Guido Günther wrote: >>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] soc: imx: Try harder to get imq8mq SoC revisions >>> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:40:18PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: >>>> Thanks for your comments. Let's try s.th. different then: identify by >>>> bootrom, ocotop and anatop and fall back to ATF afterwards (I'll split >>>> out the DT part and add binding docs if this makes sense). I'm also >>>> happy to drop the whole ATF logic until mailine ATF catched up: >>>> >>>> The mainline ATF doesn't currently support the FSL_SIP_GET_SOC_INFO call >>>> nor does it have the code to identify different imx8mq SOC revisions so >>>> mimic what NXPs ATF does here. >>> >>> Does this makes sense? If so I'll send this out as a series. >> >> Mainline ATF has recently caught up: >> >>>> As a fallback use ATF so we can identify new revisions once it gains >>>> support or when using NXPs ATF. >>> >>> I'm also fine with dropping the ATF part if we don't want to depend on >>> it in mainline. >> >> Linux arm64 depends on ATF to implement power management via PSCI: >> hotplug cpuidle and suspend. >> >> It is not clear why Linux would avoid other services and insist on >> reimplementing hardware workarounds. > > I fully agree. We should not duplicate functionality between ATF and > Linux kernel. Excellent, will remember this when debating who should manipulate GPC. Guido: Are you going to resend a variant of your V1? You mentioned that you need this for erratas, how exactly are you going to fetch soc revision from a driver? For 32bit imx there is a global imx_get_soc_revision(), maybe the definition could be moved from arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu.c to drivers/soc/imx/revision.c so that it's available everywhere? -- Regards, Leonard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists