linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: move sifive_l2

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1909061527510.6292@viisi.sifive.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, palmer@...ive.com,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yash Shah <yash.shah@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: move sifive_l2_cache.c to drivers/soc

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 08:09:04AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:29:35AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > The sifive_l2_cache.c is in no way related to RISC-V architecture
> > > memory management.  It is a little stub driver working around the fact
> > > that the EDAC maintainers prefer their drivers to be structured in a
> > > certain way
> > 
> > That changed recently so I guess we can do the per-IP block driver after
> > all, if people would still prefer it.
> 
> That would seem like the best idea.  But I don't really know this code
> well enough myself, and I really need to get this code out of the
> forced on RISC-V codebase as some SOCs I'm working with simply don't
> have the memory for it..

If that's your primary concern, then in the short term, how about just 
sending a single-line patch to the arch/riscv/mm Makefile to skip building 
it if !CONFIG_SOC_SIFIVE?  Assuming, that is, you won't be enabling EDAC 
support for those low-end SoCs.  Then you won't need to get the ack 
from the EDAC folks in the short term.  

Then a patch to make the SiFive platform EDAC driver build contingent on 
CONFIG_SOC_SIFIVE could be sent separately.


- Paul