linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] ARM: dts: aspeed-g6: Fix gpio memory region

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: <2b3c4303-ef63-4c34-be00-ff59abc32e69@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:02:21 +0930
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@...id.au>
To:     "Billy Tsai" <billy_tsai@...eedtech.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Joel Stanley" <joel@....id.au>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Ryan Chen" <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>
Cc:     BMC-SW@...eedtech.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] ARM: dts: aspeed-g6: Fix gpio memory region



On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, at 09:42, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> Hi Billy,
> 
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, at 18:36, Billy Tsai wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Billy Tsai <billy_tsai@...eedtech.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g6.dtsi | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g6.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g6.dtsi
> > index 97ca743363d7..b9ec8b579f73 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g6.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g6.dtsi
> > @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@
> >  				#gpio-cells = <2>;
> >  				gpio-controller;
> >  				compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-gpio";
> > -				reg = <0x1e780000 0x800>;
> > +				reg = <0x1e780000 0x500>;
> 
> We took the 0x800 value from the memory space layout table in the datasheet for 
> the 2600. Should that be updated too? Or are you just limiting the region to 
> the registers currently described rather than the allocated address space?

Ah, actually, I see what's going on. We really have this layout (taking some liberties):

0x1e785000 - 0x1e785500: PGPIO 3.3V
0x1e785500 - 0x1e785600: SGPM1
0x1e785600 - 0x1e785700: SGPM2
0x1e785700 - 0x1e785740: SPGS1
0x1e785740 - 0x1e785780: SPGS2
0x1e785800 - 0x1e786000: PGPIO 1.8V

Ryan: Can you change the address space layout table to reflect this? That way it
still functions as a quick - but accurate - reference.

Andrew