linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/setup_64: Set cache-line-size based on cache-block-size

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: <87tv1jirlj.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 21:43:04 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        "christophe.leroy\@c-s.fr" <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        "paulus\@samba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "benh\@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "oss\@buserror.net" <oss@...error.net>,
        "tglx\@linutronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hamish Martin <Hamish.Martin@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/setup_64: Set cache-line-size based on cache-block-size

Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> writes:
> Hi All,
>
> On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 16:18 +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
>> If {i,d}-cache-block-size is set and {i,d}-cache-line-size is not,
>> use
>> the block-size value for both. Per the devicetree spec cache-line-
>> size
>> is only needed if it differs from the block size.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
>> ---
>> It looks as though the bsizep = lsizep is not required per the spec
>> but it's
>> probably safer to retain it.
>> 
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Scott pointed out that u-boot should be filling in the cache
>> properties
>>   (which it does). But it does not specify a cache-line-size because
>> it
>>   provides a cache-block-size and the spec says you don't have to if
>> they are
>>   the same. So the error is in the parsing not in the devicetree
>> itself.
>> 
>
> Ping? This thread went kind of quiet.

I replied in the other thread:

  https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/87369xx99u.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au/

But then the merge window happened which is a busy time.

What I'd really like is a v3 that incorporates the info I wrote in the
other thread and a Fixes tag.

If you feel like doing that, that would be great. Otherwise I'll do it
tomorrow.

cheers