linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] dt-bindings: memory: Describing LPDDR topology

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:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 09:34:06 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Jian-Jia Su <jjsu@...gle.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] dt-bindings: memory: Describing LPDDR topology

On 31/08/2022 04:33, Julius Werner wrote:
> This patch series implements a proposal previously discussed on the
> mailing list under the topic `[RFC] Correct memory layout reporting for
> "jedec,lpddr2" and related bindings`. It adds a new jedec,lpddr-channel
> binding which should be used to group nodes of the existing jedec,lpddr
> bindings to describe their relative topology on the system and the
> amount of chips wired in parallel on each channel, as well as their
> different ranks. This also adds bindings for LPDDR4 and LPDDR5 memory
> types and deduplicates some common schema elements between different
> LPDDR types.
> 
> Julius Werner (4):
>   dt-bindings: memory: Factor out common properties of LPDDR bindings
>   dt-bindings: memory: Add numeric LPDDR compatible string variant
>   dt-bindings: memory: Add jedec,lpddr4 and jedec,lpddr5 bindings
>   dt-bindings: memory: Add jedec,lpddrX-channel binding

Thanks for the patches. Where are the users of these bindings? Although
bindings do not have requirement of providing user (as kernel API has),
but this is quite a rework so I want to see that it is applicable. That
it matches real use case and need. I can do it only with real DTS in the
kernel.

Best regards,
Krzysztof