linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Fixup the cpufreq node

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: <YS5hDq+xblntYbh0@ripper>
Date:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:04:14 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>, sboyd@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        tdas@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Fixup the cpufreq node

On Tue 31 Aug 08:30 PDT 2021, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:34:44PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > Fixup the register regions used by the cpufreq node on SC7280 SoC to
> > support per core L3 DCVS.
> > 
> > Fixes: 7dbd121a2c58 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add cpufreq hw node")
> > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
> 
> This patch landed in the Bjorn's tree, however the corresponding driver
> change ("cpufreq: qcom: Re-arrange register offsets to support per core
> L3 DCVS" / https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/1627581885-32165-3-git-send-email-sibis@codeaurora.org/)
> did not land in any maintainer tree yet AFAIK. IIUC the DT change alone
> breaks cpufreq since the changed register regions require the changed
> offset in the cpufreq driver.
> 

Thanks for the note Matthias, it must have slipped by as I scraped the
inbox for things that looked ready.

I'm actually not in favor of splitting these memory blocks in DT to
facilitate the Linux implementation of splitting that in multiple
drivers...

But I've not been following up on that discussion.

Regards,
Bjorn

> Sibi, please confirm or clarify that my concern is unwarranted.