linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 0/3] Add LLCC support for SC7180 SoC

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: <1565197bda60573937453e95dcafbe68@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:30:40 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@...eaurora.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/3] Add LLCC support for SC7180 SoC

Hello Rob,

On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rob,
>>> 
>>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
>>> > <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
>>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
>>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
>>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
>>> >> applied
>>> >
>>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
>>> >
>>> 
>>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check 
>>> is
>>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
>>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
>> 
>> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
>> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
>> 
> 
> I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did 
> not
> error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
> the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning 
> or
> not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the 
> entire
> build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is 
> an
> immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good 
> if
> we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or 
> atleast
> provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is 
> already
> a flag to do this?
> 
> After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
> patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
> 
> [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
> 
>> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
>> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
>> 'cache-controller'.
>> 
> 
> This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache) 
> shared by
> clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify 
> cache-level for
> this, let me know if you have some pointers.
> 

Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does 
dt-binding-check
needs to be updated for this case?

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation