linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Drop tcsr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YcyB21OI0GVhNmQJ@ripper>
Date:   Wed, 29 Dec 2021 07:42:19 -0800
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     20200622075956.171058-5-bjorn.andersson@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Drop tcsr_mutex syscon

On Sat 25 Dec 06:57 PST 2021, David Heidelberg wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> any particular reason, why you did applied this patch only to sm8250?
> 

I was working on a 8250 board when this annoyed me, and I wanted to keep
the "example" clean so I only did that platform and then forgot to go
back and clean up the rest. (Same thing with the smem compatible moving
to reserved-memory).

> Is it safe to convert rest of tcsr-mutex nodes to new schema without
> additional testing?
> 

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be safe, so please feel free to
prepare a patch.

Thanks,
Bjorn