linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: ti: iot2050: Flip mmc device ordering on Advanced devices

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:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 17:20:48 +0200
From:   Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:     Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc:     Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Bao Cheng Su <baocheng.su@...mens.com>,
        Chao Zeng <chao.zeng@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: ti: iot2050: Flip mmc device ordering on
 Advanced devices

On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>
>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced
>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream
>> kernels.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts
>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts
>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / {
>>  	compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654";
>>  	model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced";
>>  
>> +	aliases {
>> +		mmc0 = &sdhci1;
>> +		mmc1 = &sdhci0;
>> +	};
> 
> 
> Should we do this at SoC level?
> 

Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us,
this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our
downstream kernel/dts.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux