linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] dt-bindings: arm: msm: Fix register regions used for LLCC banks

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: <cab9c51a-01cf-3b0a-cfb5-314fafa397c7@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 17:28:49 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        andersson@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, bp@...en8.de,
        tony.luck@...el.com
Cc:     quic_saipraka@...cinc.com, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        james.morse@....com, mchehab@...nel.org, rric@...nel.org,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, quic_ppareek@...cinc.com,
        luca.weiss@...rphone.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] dt-bindings: arm: msm: Fix register regions used
 for LLCC banks

On 12/12/2022 13:33, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Register regions of the LLCC banks are located at separate addresses.
> Currently, the binding just lists the LLCC0 base address and specifies
> the size to cover all banks. This is not the correct approach since,
> there are holes and other registers located in between.
> 
> So let's specify the base address of each LLCC bank and get rid of
> reg-names property as it is not needed anymore. It should be noted that
> the bank count differs for each SoC, so that also needs to be taken into
> account in the binding.
> 
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.19
> Fixes: 7e5700ae64f6 ("dt-bindings: Documentation for qcom, llcc")

Also here there is no bug explained enough justifying backport of
bindings. Additionally, you effectively cannot backport bindings -
bindings from previous versions are still defining the ABI.

Best regards,
Krzysztof