linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: dts: rockchip: add missing @0 to memory nodenames

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:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:21:52 +0100
From:   Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: dts: rockchip: add missing @0 to memory
 nodenames

Hi Heiko,

Goal was to reduce the error output of existing code a little bit,
so that we can use it for the review of new patches.
Some questions:
As I don't have the hardware, where else is coreboot used?
Is this a rk3288-veyron.dtsi problem only?
ie. Is it a option to produce a patch serie v2 without veyron?
Can someone help testing?

Johan

On 3/5/20 10:31 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Hi Johan,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020, 08:40:50 CET schrieb Johan Jonker:
>> A test with the command below gives for example this error:
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-tinker.dt.yaml: /: memory:
>> False schema does not allow
>> {'device_type': ['memory'], 'reg': [[0, 0, 0, 2147483648]]}
>>
>> The memory nodes all have a reg property that requires '@' in
>> the nodename. Fix this error by adding the missing '@0' to
>> the involved memory nodenames.
>>
>> make ARCH=arm dtbs_check
>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=~/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dtschema/
>> schemas/root-node.yaml
>
> changes to memory nodes you sadly cannot do in such an automated fashion.
> If you read the comment in rk3288-veyron.dtsi you'll see that a previous
> similar iteration broke all of those machines as their coreboot doesn't
> copy with memory@0 and would insert another memory node without @0
>
> In the past iteration the consensus then was that memory without @0
> is also ok (as it isn't changeable anyway).
>

> As I don't really want to repeat that, I'd like actual hardware tests
> before touching memory nodes.

Any suggestion/feedback rapport welcome.

>
> Heiko
>
>