linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] reset: Add Raspberry Pi 4 firmware reset controller

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: <b324122e8bd93302215a77d0dcf6d8b2897d3597.camel@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:44:59 +0200
From:   Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
To:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, wahrenst@....net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, tim.gover@...pberrypi.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, helgaas@...nel.org,
        andy.shevchenko@...il.com, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] reset: Add Raspberry Pi 4 firmware reset
 controller

On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 12:02 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> On Fri, 2020-06-12 at 19:13 +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > Raspberry Pi 4's co-processor controls some of the board's HW
> > initialization process, but it's up to Linux to trigger it when
> > relevant. Introduce a reset controller capable of interfacing with
> > RPi4's co-processor that models these firmware initialization routines as
> > reset lines.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>

Thanks!

> If there is a good reason for the single DT specified reset id, I can
> pick up patches 1 and 2.

The idea here is to make sure we're reasonably covered against further changes
in firmware. If we define constraints too narrow it can be a pain to support
new features without breaking backwards compatibility in dt.

> If you change the dts patch 4 to use a number instead of the reset id
> define for now, there wouldn't even be a dependency between these reset
> and dts patches.

I was under the impression that having an explicit definition was nice to have.
What's troubling about creating the dependency?

Regards,
Nicolas


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)