linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add Coresight debug range for RK3399

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:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 08:09:44 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add Coresight debug
 range for RK3399

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:46 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Per Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight-cpu-debug.txt.
>
> This IP block can be used for sampling the PC of any given CPU, which is
> useful in certain panic scenarios where you can't get the CPU to stop
> cleanly (e.g., hard lockup).
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> ---
>
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> index 3871c7fd83b0..c8c62637b600 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
> @@ -433,6 +433,54 @@ usbdrd_dwc3_1: usb@...00000 {
>                 };
>         };
>
> +       debug@...30000 {

I think your sort order is wrong? 0xfe430000 comes before 0xfe900000?

Other than that this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>