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]
Date:   Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:50:58 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Sergey Lisov <sleirsgoevy@...il.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
Cc:     linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] devicetree: synopsys-dw-mshc-common: add
 "fifo-access-32bit" property

On 11/03/2023 16:22, Sergey Lisov wrote:

Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (which you can get for
example with `git log --oneline -- DIRECTORY_OR_FILE` on the directory
your patch is touching).

Missing commit msg, which should answer why you are doing this and give
more background.

> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml    | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml
> index 8dfad89c7..2bc5ac528 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml
> @@ -57,6 +57,12 @@ properties:
>        force fifo watermark setting accordingly.
>      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
>  
> +  fifo-access-32bit:

Missing type boolean.

> +    description:
> +      Specifies that this device requires accesses to its 64-bit registers
> +      to be done as pairs of 32-bit accesses, even on architectures where
> +      readq is available.

And why the device would require this? If it has 64-bit registers in the
first place, they can be accessed in 64-bit. Otherwise these are not
64-bit registers, but just lower/upper 32-bit, right?

Also, why this cannot be implied from compatible? Why different boards
with same SoC should have different FIFO access?



Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ