linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: tegra: Add Tegra234 GPCDMA device tree node

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 11:14:34 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: tegra: Add Tegra234 GPCDMA device tree node

On 13/05/2022 10:39, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 13/05/2022 09:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 11:00, Akhil R wrote:
>>> Add device tree nodes for Tegra234 GPCDMA
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra234.dtsi | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra234.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra234.dtsi
>>> index cb3af539e477..860c3cc68cea 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra234.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra234.dtsi
>>> @@ -21,6 +21,49 @@
>>>   
>>>   		ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x40000000>;
>>>   
>>> +		gpcdma: dma-controller@...0000 {
>>> +			compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-gpcdma",
>>> +				      "nvidia,tegra186-gpcdma";
>>> +			reg = <0x2600000 0x210000>;
>>> +			resets = <&bpmp TEGRA234_RESET_GPCDMA>;
>>> +			reset-names = "gpcdma";
>>> +			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 76 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 77 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 78 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 79 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 80 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 81 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 82 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 83 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 84 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 85 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 86 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 87 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 88 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 89 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 90 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 91 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 92 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 93 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 94 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 95 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 96 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 97 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 98 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 99 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 100 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 101 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 102 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 103 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 104 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 105 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 106 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> +			#dma-cells = <1>;
>>> +			iommus = <&smmu_niso0 TEGRA234_SID_GPCDMA>;
>>> +			dma-coherent;
>>> +			status = "okay";
>>
>> okay is by default for new nodes.
> 
> Just so I know, is it recommended then to drop the status in this case 
> or is it OK to leave as is?

If this is a new node, then please drop it. Less code.

Of course it would be entirely different if this was overriding an
existing node with status=disabled.


Best regards,
Krzysztof