linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: uniphier-ep: Add support for non-legacy SoC

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: <664a23d0-7646-3c50-fe4d-d29b6ce99a35@socionext.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 20:11:45 +0900
From:   Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: uniphier-ep: Add support for non-legacy SoC

Hi Bjorn,

Thank you for your comment.

On 2022/02/05 1:06, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 11:36:25AM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>> Define SoC data that includes pci_epc_features and boolean 'is_legacy'
>> to distinguish between legacy SoC (ex. Pro5) and non-legacy SoC.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of "legacy" as a description because it conveys very
> little information.  You're adding support for a "non-legacy" SoC, so
> now there are "legacy" ones and "non-legacy" ones.  Next year there
> will be another new SoC, and then there will be *two* kinds of
> "legacy" ones that must be distinguished plus the next "non-legacy"
> one.

Make sense. There will be multiple different "legacy", so it isn't
desirable to distinguish SoCs by legacy and non-legacy.

> You mentioned "Pro5" as an example of "legacy," which is a good start.
> Are there any others?  If Pro5 is the only one, you could just use
> "pro5" where you now use "legacy."
I see. In consideration of the future, I'll define callback functions
and prepare functions for each SoC.
And the "gio" clocks/resets are distinguished by the flag "has_gio".

Thank you,

---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi