linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] ARM: dts: Add basic support for EcoNet EN7523

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d0ff051b-280c-4021-f4ee-7bfda5e356d3@biot.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:41:55 +0200
From:   Bert Vermeulen <bert@...t.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        soc@...nel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ARM: dts: Add basic support for EcoNet EN7523

On 7/30/21 4:46 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 03:45:50PM +0200, Bert Vermeulen wrote:
>> +	timer {
>> +		compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> 
> This should be "arm,armv7-timer".
> 
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>> +		interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>> +			     <GIC_PPI 14 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>> +			     <GIC_PPI 11 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>> +			     <GIC_PPI 10 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>;
> 
> GICv3 doesn't have a cpumask in its PPI description, so the
> GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE() bits should be removed.

Ok, will fix.

>> +		clock-frequency = <25000000>;
> 
> Please have your FW configure CNTFRQ on each CPU; the clock-frequency
> property in the DT is a workaround for broken FW, and it's *vastly*
> preferable for FW to configure this correctly (e.g. as it means VMs
> should "just work").

I've since got hold of the modified U-Boot that runs on my eval board, and 
indeed it doesn't set CNTFRQ. So the kernel does need this, for the moment.

I may get a chance to upstream support for this SoC in U-Boot, but I can't 
control what people are going to ship with their board. Is it ok to leave 
this in?


-- 
Bert Vermeulen
bert@...t.com