linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: qcom: restrict drivers per ARM/ARM64

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]

Message-ID: <CAA8EJpouyuCn5Kz-3RgRJPd+K1sWwtidz1L_mXY_U2AFQq8oOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:37:59 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: qcom: restrict drivers per ARM/ARM64

On Sun, 25 Sept 2022 at 14:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 25/09/2022 13:43, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 25 September 2022 14:21:03 GMT+03:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> There is no point to allow selecting pin-controller drivers for Qualcomm
> >> ARMv7 SoCs when building ARM64 kernel, and vice versa.  This makes
> >> kernel configuration more difficult as many do not remember the Qualcomm
> >> SoCs.  There won't be a single image for ARMv7 and ARMv8/9 SoCs, so no
> >> features/options are lost.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> >
> > I haven't checked which restrictions apply to msm8916 at this moment, but it might be worth adding 'depends on ARM || ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST'
>
> This is limited by ARCH_QCOM (top-level if in the file), so I am not
> sure what would be benefits.

I thought that it might be added to represent the fact that this is
not an omission, but a special case which can be used by both 32-bit
and 64-bit archs.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry