linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: sifive: add cache-set value of 2048

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]

Message-ID: <246f132a-a23d-7c53-38a7-2bcec50d65e5@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:35:25 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <mail@...chuod.ie>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
        Atul Khare <atulkhare@...osinc.com>,
        Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@...ive.com>
Cc:     linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: sifive: add cache-set value of 2048

On 26/07/2022 19:07, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Atul Khare <atulkhare@...osinc.com>
> 
> Fixes Running device tree schema validation error messages like
> '... cache-sets:0:0: 1024 was expected'.
> 
> The existing bindings had a single enumerated value of 1024, which
> trips up the dt-schema checks. The ISA permits any arbitrary power
> of two for the cache-sets value, but we decided to add the single
> additional value of 2048 because we couldn't spot an obvious way
> to express the constraint in the schema.

There is no way to express "power of two" but enum for multiple values
would work. Is there a reason to limit only to 2048?

Best regards,
Krzysztof