linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm64: configs: Support DEVAPC on MediaTek platforms

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:   Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:07:27 +0100
From:   Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To:     Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hanks Chen <Hanks.Chen@...iatek.com>,
        Jackson-kt Chang <Jackson-kt.Chang@...iatek.com>,
        wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm64: configs: Support DEVAPC on MediaTek
 platforms



On 23/12/2020 09:44, Neal Liu wrote:
> Support DEVAPC on MediaTek platforms by enabling CONFIG_MTK_DEVAPC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> index 17a2df6..a373776 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
> @@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ CONFIG_MTD_NAND_MARVELL=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_NAND_FSL_IFC=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_NAND_QCOM=y
>  CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR=y
> +CONFIG_MTK_DEVAPC=m
>  CONFIG_SPI_CADENCE_QUADSPI=y
>  CONFIG_BLK_DEV_LOOP=y
>  CONFIG_BLK_DEV_NBD=m
> 

>From my understanding, defconfig is for a minimal config that allows to boot a
machine. As MTK_DEVAPC is a rather exotic driver to detect bus access
violations, I think it's not a good candidate for inclusion in defconfig.

In any case, I added the SoC maintainer, so that they can correct me, if I'm
wrong :)

Regards,
Matthias