linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] cpufreq: qcom_cpufreq_nvmem: Simplify reading kryo speedbin

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:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:58:42 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
To:     Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@...tonmail.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Ilia Lin <ilia.lin@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
Cc:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        phone-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] cpufreq: qcom_cpufreq_nvmem: Simplify reading kryo
 speedbin


On 14.10.2021 10:32, Yassine Oudjana wrote:
> In preparation for adding a separate device tree for MSM8996 Pro, skip reading
> msm-id from smem and just read the speedbin efuse.
>
While I'd really like for this to be merged, it's gonna totally wreck backwards

compatibility.. But then, since APCC was not defined properly before commit

0a275a35ceab07 arm64: dts: qcom: msm8996: Make CPUCC actually probe (and work)

there's only 5.14/5.15 (both of which were non-LTS) which would *actually* break given

somebody decided that "ah yes, pulling in DTs from these specific mainline kernel releases

is a good idea"...


If I were to judge, it would probably be fine to rid the old mechanism..


Konrad