linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8540p-ride: correct name of remoteproc

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: <20230309215553.pe523cmw6nc4pmnw@ripper>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 13:55:53 -0800
From:   Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
Cc:     quic_shazhuss@...cinc.com, agross@...nel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8540p-ride: correct name of
 remoteproc_nsp0 firmware

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:36:52PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 13:06, Brian Masney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 08/03/2023 00:23, Brian Masney wrote:
> >>> The cdsp.mbn firmware that's referenced in sa8540p-ride.dts is actually
> >>> named cdsp0.mbn in the deliverables from Qualcomm. Let's go ahead and
> >>> correct the name to match what's in Qualcomm's deliverable.
> >>
> >> I don't think vendor deliverables matter. linux-firmware is here more
> >> important. The file will be cdsp.mbn in the firmware, won't it?
> > 
> > cdsp0.mbn and cdsp1.mbn for the sa8540p are not in linux-firmware and I
> > far as I know there's no plan for someone to submit those since QC would
> > need to approve that. I can ask though since the DTS for these two bits
> > has been submitted upstream.
> 
> If they are never going to be submitted, vendor is allowed to rename
> them all the time in their "deliverables". Are you going to rename the
> file every time Qualcomm decides to rename them? There is no single
> guarantee the names would be fixed, because vendor is allowed to do
> absolutely anything.
> 

cdsp0.mbn and cdsp1.mbn are better names, so let's use this patch to
define that if/when they are pushed to linux-firmware it should follow
this scheme.

> Sorry, but any argument in upstream DTS that "someone downstream does
> something" is deemed to fail in many cases.
> 

That is indeed an insufficient argument, in many cases.

Regards,
Bjorn