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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YQ2iwIcSuDwcw/s5@robh.at.kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 14:59:44 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Bert Vermeulen <bert@...t.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 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, John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
        Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ARM: dts: Add basic support for EcoNet EN7523

On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 06:41:55PM +0200, Bert Vermeulen wrote:
> 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.

Can't you write CNTFRQ in the u-boot shell/script?

> 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?

If they want a working upstream Linux, then you can control it.

I seem to recall this being rejected in other cases. That may have been 
on v8 which has taken stricter stances (but arguably any new v7 stuff 
should too).

Rob