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  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]
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:32:47 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <>, arm-soc <>,
        SoC Team <>, Kukjin Kim <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        "" <>,
        DTML <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <> 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.

We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
(although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.

> > 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.

Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.

Best regards,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists