| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9c2e6c94400b469eaff6a370135328a1@realtek.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:47:08 +0000
From: James Tai [戴志峰] <james.tai@...ltek.com>
To: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
CC: "linux-realtek-soc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-realtek-soc@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: realtek: Add RTD1319 SoC and Realtek PymParticle EVB
Hi Andreas,
> Am 04.02.20 um 15:52 schrieb James Tai:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1319-pymparticle.dts
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1319-pymparticle.dts
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..2a36d220fef6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1319-pymparticle.dts
> > @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
>
> 2019-2020? (also elsewhere)
>
Yes. It should be changed to "2019-2020".
> > + */
> > +
> > +/dts-v1/;
> > +
> > +#include "rtd1319.dtsi"
> > +
> > +/ {
> > + compatible = "realtek,pymparticle", "realtek,rtd1319";
> > + model = "Realtek PymParticle EVB";
> > +
> > + memory@...00 {
> > + device_type = "memory";
> > + reg = <0x2e000 0x3ffd2000>; /* boot ROM to 1 GiB or 2 GiB */
> > + };
> > +
> > + chosen {
> > + stdout-path = "serial0:460800n8";
> > + };
> > +
> > + aliases {
> > + serial0 = &uart0;
> > + serial1 = &uart1;
> > + serial2 = &uart2;
> > + };
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* debug console (J1) */
> > +&uart0 {
> > + status = "okay";
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* M.2 slot (CON8) */
>
> Also J14 and CON2 (unless the board is mislabeled?).
>
> /* J14 and M.2 slots (CON2, CON8) */ ?
>
Yes. It should be changed to "M.2 slots (CON2, CON8)".
> > +&uart1 {
> > + status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* GPIO connector (T1) */
> > +&uart2 {
> > + status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1319.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1319.dtsi
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..1dcee00009cd
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1319.dtsi
> > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +/*
> > + * Realtek RTD1319 SoC
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include "rtd13xx.dtsi"
> > +
> > +/ {
> > + compatible = "realtek,rtd1319";
> > +};
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd13xx.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd13xx.dtsi
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..f6d73f18345d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd13xx.dtsi
> > @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +/*
> > + * Realtek RTD13xx SoC family
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Realtek Semiconductor Corp.
> > + */
> > +
> > +/memreserve/ 0x0000000000000000 0x000000000002e000; /* Boot ROM
> */
>
> Can you check whether your U-Boot and LK respectively need this memreserve
> entry, here and for previous SoCs? Because for RTD16xx we don't seem to have
> any memreserve entries at all. We do have it in rtd139x.dtsi, rtd129x.dtsi and
> rtd1195.dtsi.
>
I've checked that the boot code doesn't need this memreserve entry.
Therefore, I will remove it.
> Unrelated: Since we're carving out the 2e000 or so from /memory node and
> mapping ranges for /soc, I've been wondering whether we should represent
> the Boot ROM as node somehow. But since it's a ROM with (I assume) binary
> code only, I didn't see any need to have it accessible as mtd-rom device, so it's
> way down my to-do list to research how other mainline platforms might model
> their boot ROMs... (maybe your team has time, or someone reading happens
> to know?)
>
I'll add it to my to-do list.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Docum
> entation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/mtd-physmap.txt
>
> > +/memreserve/ 0x000000000002e000 0x0000000000100000; /* Boot
> loader */
>
> Is this a) correctly sized (not 0xd2000?) and b) still needed? I thought the
> documented sub-0x100000 memory corruption were fixed in newer BSPs?
>
We're in the process of re-planning the memory layout,
so that address will move to new address.
> > +/memreserve/ 0x000000000f400000 0x0000000000500000; /* Video FW
> */
> > +/memreserve/ 0x000000000f900000 0x0000000000500000; /* Audio FW
> */
> > +/memreserve/ 0x0000000010000000 0x0000000000014000; /* Audio FW
> RAM */
> [snip]
>
> Are these needed for the bootloader not to overwrite preloaded firmware, or
> could these become /mem-reserve sub-nodes instead?
>
Yes. These could become /mem-reserve sub-nodes instead.
> Long-term I'm assuming we would move the responsibility for loading these to
> the new kernel drivers (so that the bootloader doesn't need to take care
> anymore) and ship the needed blobs in linux-firmware.git?
>
> Or is the video FW needed by the bootloader itself for HDMI/DP output?
>
I agree with you. The video FW can be loaded into memory through this mechanism.
But the audio FW needed by the bootloader itself for HDMI/DP output.
Therefore, the audio FW can't be loaded into memory through it.
Thank you.
Regards,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists