linux-kernel - Re: Removal of qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id

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:   Sun, 22 May 2022 12:26:57 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Removal of qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id

On 20/05/2022 03:39, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 
>>
>> I vaguely recall that the properties had to be extracted during the
>> boot.img creation process to create a table of contents header. But
>> after some time the bootloader started scanning the DTBs directly for
>> the vendor properties and thus the header was deprecated/removed. If the
>> bootloader is doing the scanning then I'm not sure what is preventing
>> the properties from being documented and allowed. I think the main
>> rejection was that the properties were added purely to be extracted
>> during post processing and placed into the table of contents header,
>> i.e. they weren't actually used by the kernel or the bootloader. If they
>> are now used by the bootloader it sounds OK to me if they're kept
>> around.
> 
> Yes, as far as I understand, they are used by the bootloader directly.
> 

I entirely missed one part - Stephen's patches from 2015 were actually
applied and since 2015 we expect all boards to follow convention:

compatible =
"qcom,<SoC>[-<soc_version>][-<foundry_id>]-<board>[/<subtype>][-<board_version>]"

The patchset was accepted, although in the thread I do not see "Applied"
message.

Stephen,
can you or anyone else confirm that the dtbTool Qualcomm uses (and/or
bootloader) are adjusted as well to these new compatibles?

If yes, we can simply remove board-id and msm-id properties from new
boards, because 7 years was enough to switch to these new tools...

Best regards,
Krzysztof