linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] adds corstone500 device tree

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: <9dec25fa-7bce-a715-b63e-0a71b5743e3d@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 15:06:53 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Emekcan Aras <emekcan.aras@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Miguel Silva <rui.silva@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] adds corstone500 device tree

On 22/12/2022 13:32, Emekcan Aras wrote:
> Adds device tree and correspondent binding for ARM Corstone500 reference 
> solution. 
> 
> Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late reply. Most of the comments are
> addressed except one.
> 
> @Krzysztof Kozlowski: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've tried to fixed all of 
> them. Just have one question regarding having no dtsi or compatible platform.
> Corstone500 is a reference hardware design, however there is no silicon solution
> from it yet. And from device tree perspective, both FPGA and FVP (virtual 
> platform) implementations are identical(same addresses and same nodes, etc.).
> So we didn't want to create a seperate dtsi file. What would you recommend here
> ? Can you point me to a device tree from a similar platform?

Corstone1000 was accepted that way, so it is fine. I am just surprised
that if you are going to have silicons with it, there is no common
compatible and no shared DTSI.

What do you expect from customer? Re-implement and copy most of your DTS?

Best regards,
Krzysztof