linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0cee46b0-445c-6e9f-3bc3-50a107cbaf4a@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:45:06 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: qcom: restrict drivers per ARM/ARM64

On 23/01/2023 13:31, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23.01.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski 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 model names/numbers.  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>
>> ---
> Not sure about the newest of the newest SoCs with Cortex-X etc,
> but older ones, particularly including 8916 (as some vendors
> in their infinite wisdom decided that shipping a 32 bit tz is
> a good idea) having ARM || ARM64 would make sense.

Why? ARM || ARM64 is implied by ARCH_QCOM, so what would it give?

Best regards,
Krzysztof