linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] riscv: Remove non-standard linux,elfcorehdr handling

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: <CAL_JsqKJgz=ixNAJProoVFmQXGEOsTYX=bXTdtf7RLQErL1VRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:47:46 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To:     Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] riscv: Remove non-standard linux,elfcorehdr handling

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 4:43 AM Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr> wrote:
>
> Στις 2021-06-16 10:56, Geert Uytterhoeven έγραψε:
> >
> > I can't comment on the duplication on arm64, but to me, /chosen
> > sounds like the natural place for both "linux,elfcorehdr" and
> > "linux,usable-memory-range".  First rule of DT is "DT describes
> > hardware, not software policy", with /chosen describing some software
> > configuration.
> >
>
> We already have "linux,usable-memory" on /memory node:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc6/source/drivers/of/fdt.c#L1011
> and it makes perfect sense to be there since it overrides /memory's reg
> property.
>
> Why define another binding for the same thing on /chosen ?

Go look at the thread adding "linux,usable-memory-range". There were
only 35 versions of it[1]. I wasn't happy with a 2nd way either, but
as I've mentioned before we don't always have /memory node.

Rob

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20170403022606.12609-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org/