linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 073/321] bus: ti-sysc: Check for no-reset and no-idle flags at the child level

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:47:19 -0800
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 073/321] bus: ti-sysc: Check for no-reset and
 no-idle flags at the child level

* Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> [191204 13:00]:
> On Tue 2019-12-03 23:32:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit 4014c08ba39476a18af546186da625a6833a1529 ]
> > 
> > With ti-sysc, we need to now have the device tree properties for
> > ti,no-reset-on-init and ti,no-idle-on-init at the module level instead
> > of the child device level.
> > 
> > Let's check for these properties at the child device level to enable
> > quirks, and warn about moving the properties to the module level.
> > 
> > Otherwise am335x-evm based boards tagging gpio1 with ti,no-reset-on-init
> > will have their DDR power disabled if wired up in such a tricky way.
> > 
> > Note that this should not be an issue for earlier kernels as we don't
> > rely on this until the dts files have been updated to probe with ti-sysc
> > interconnect target driver.
> 
> This is queued for 4.19-stable, but the comment seems to say it is not
> needed in the older kernels.
> 
> Tony, do we want this in 4.19?

Correct, it should not be needed as the related devicetree are
not in earlier kernels and I doubt anybody is going to use a newer
devicetree with v4.19.

I guess one usecase could be to enable more of the accelerators
for v4.19, but that work is still ongoing in the mainline
kernel and would require quite a bit backporting with the reset
and clock driver changes.

So yeah this one can be dropped for earlier kernels.

Regards,

Tony