linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 17/17] soc: qcom: llcc: Do not create EDAC platform device on SDM845

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: <20230118155919.GD4690@thinkpad>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 21:29:19 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     andersson@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, bp@...en8.de,
        tony.luck@...el.com, 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,
        ahalaney@...hat.com, steev@...i.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 17/17] soc: qcom: llcc: Do not create EDAC platform
 device on SDM845

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:37:29PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/01/2023 16:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > The platforms based on SDM845 SoC locks the access to EDAC registers in the
> > bootloader. So probing the EDAC driver will result in a crash. Hence,
> > disable the creation of EDAC platform device on all SDM845 devices.
> > 
> > The issue has been observed on Lenovo Yoga C630 and DB845c.
> > 
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 5.10
> > Reported-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
> > index 7b7c5a38bac6..8d840702df50 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
> > @@ -1012,11 +1012,18 @@ static int qcom_llcc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  
> >  	drv_data->ecc_irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> >  
> > -	llcc_edac = platform_device_register_data(&pdev->dev,
> > -					"qcom_llcc_edac", -1, drv_data,
> > -					sizeof(*drv_data));
> > -	if (IS_ERR(llcc_edac))
> > -		dev_err(dev, "Failed to register llcc edac driver\n");
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The platforms based on SDM845 SoC locks the access to EDAC registers
> > +	 * in bootloader. So probing the EDAC driver will result in a crash.
> > +	 * Hence, disable the creation of EDAC platform device on SDM845.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "qcom,sdm845-llcc")) {
> 
> Don't spread of_device_is_compatible() in driver code. You have driver
> data for this.
> 

Yeah, but there is no ID to in the driver data to identify an SoC. I could add
one but is that really worth doing so? Is using of_device_is_compatible() in
drivers discouraged nowadays?

Thanks,
Mani

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்