linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH v2 02/14] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8996: split TCSR halt regs out of mutex

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:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 14:00:10 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v2 02/14] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8996: split TCSR halt
 regs out of mutex



On 18.08.2022 09:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/08/2022 23:57, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17.08.2022 15:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> The TCSR halt regs are next to TCSR mutex, so before converting the TCSR
>>> mutex into device with address space, we need to split the halt regs to
>>> its own syscon device.  This also describes more accurately the devices
>>> and their IO address space.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>> Not tested on a device, but looks good to the eye:
>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>
>>
>> On a note, are they really named TCSR_1 and TCSR_2 in the docs?
>> Qualcomm is usually more exquisite in their naming :P
> 
> This is not entirely separate address space, therefore it does not have
> a separate name. The address space name is still TCSR_MUTEX which
> consists of actual MUTEX regs, halt regs and bunch of others. The second
> one 0x7a0000 (where label I renamed to tcsr_2) is called TCSR_REGS.
> 
> This applies to other patches as well, so maybe you prefer to have
> labels matching the spec? The first would be tcsr_mutex_regs, although
> it is not entirely correct, because it does not include now the TCSR
> mutex regs...
I think it's fine as it is.

Konrad
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof