linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: qcom-scm: Add optional interrupt

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <61f1a1e5-bd2c-4a22-66f7-1935154b35ad@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:30:56 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, andersson@...nel.org
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org, robimarko@...il.com,
        quic_gurus@...cinc.com, quic_rjendra@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] dt-bindings: firmware: qcom-scm: Add optional
 interrupt

On 28/11/2022 06:57, Sibi Sankar wrote:

>>
>> Which devices have interrupts?
>>
>> We talked about it here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2464d90f-64e9-5e3c-404b-10394c3bc302@quicinc.com/
>> and here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c20edd0d-7613-5683-60e7-54317cac6e0b@linaro.org/
>>
>> But I still don't get which devices support it and which do not.
> 
> lol, I thought we reached a consensus earlier because of the "ok" and
> R-b. Like I explained earlier the bootloader would be adding interrupt
> on the fly, wouldn't such cases cause binding check failure if we list
> all the devices supporting it? 

What type of failure? I don't get. Is this interrupt valid for SM8250?
SDM845? MSM8996? and so on? Now you make it valid.

> Also some of the SM8450 devices in the
> wild would be running firmware not having the feature but I guess
> eventually most of the them will end up supporting the feature in the
> end.

That's not what I meant. Your patch describes the case for one variant
but you are affecting all of them.



Best regards,
Krzysztof