linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

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: <CAK8P3a2pBV+fh0rHitZ30Zz61QNRLfNSD-nhnzq4ZtxSh66F1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:07:17 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.

Hi Krzysztof,

I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:

> 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,

The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
revert back to 64-bit addresses.

> 2. Move GPU under /soc node,

No problem

> 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.

IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.

    Arnd