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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:01:35 -0800
From:   Brad Larson <>
To:     Marc Zyngier <>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <>,
        Mark Brown <>,
        Serge Semin <>,
        Adrian Hunter <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,
        Olof Johansson <>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <>,
        linux-spi <>,
        linux-mmc <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/11] arm64: dts: Add Pensando Elba SoC support

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:54 AM Marc Zyngier <> wrote:
> >
> > The Elba SoC is an embedded chip and not intended as a SBSA-compliant
> > general platform.
> This has nothing to do with following a standard. It has to do with
> following the intended use of the architecture. What you have here is
> the system architecture equivalent of trusting userspace to build the
> kernel page tables. It can work in limited cases. But would you want
> to deploy such construct at scale? Probably not.
> > In this implementation the ITS is used to provide message-based
> > interrupts for our (potentially large set) of hardware based
> > platform device instances.  Virtualization is not a consideration.
> > We don't have a SMMU.  Interrupt isolation isn't a practical
> > consideration for this product.
> Because you have foreseen all use cases for this HW ahead of time, and
> can already tell how SW is going to make use of it? Oh well...
> > Propose adding a comment to the dts.
> >
> > +                       /*
> > +                        * Elba SoC implemented a pre-ITS that happened to
> > +                        * be the same implementation as synquacer.
> > +                        */
> Which contains zero information. What you really want is: "We have
> decided to ignore the system architecture, good luck".
>         M.
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

On the contrary, the confusion of using the existing driver match
"socionext,synquacer-pre-its" is answered, why add new code.
Looks like we are deviating from the norm ;-).  I'm not seeing how
this conversation is a productive use of time for a platform in


Powered by blists - more mailing lists