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: <39cac04f-684f-ffa5-a5ba-d1734fa00477@samsung.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:56:05 +0200
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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

Hi

On 2019-09-12 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.

I decided to go with 32bit version to make the fix smaller and easier to 
backport. If you select revert, make sure that it is applied after 
moving gpu node under /soc, otherwise the gpu node will have incorrect 
(32bit) reg property. Also add the gpu related patch as an (optional?) 
prerequisite for it.

>> 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.

Ookay, I wasn't aware of that.


Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland