linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: qcom

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: <20230322033600.mkfeldd7oftpm32d@ripper>
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 20:36:00 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: qcom_scm: Add SM6375 compatible

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7.03.2023 02:22, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > While it was introduced in bindings, requiring a core clock, and added
> > into the DT, this compatible was apparently forgotten about on the driver
> > side of things. Fix it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
> > index 916a0c2fc903..2e8961c84b68 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c
> > @@ -1494,6 +1494,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_scm_dt_match[] = {
> >  	},
> >  	{ .compatible = "qcom,scm-msm8994" },
> >  	{ .compatible = "qcom,scm-msm8996" },
> > +	{ .compatible = "qcom,scm-sm6375", .data = (void *)SCM_HAS_CORE_CLK },
> On a second thought, maybe the qcom,scm compatible could optionally consume
> all three clocks with schema guarding how many should be used, to prevent
> having to add nonsensical compatibles?
> 

I've picked the patch, but your suggestion is not a bad idea. Back when
this scheme was decided there was no binding validation...

Regards,
Bjorn

> Konrad
> >  	{ .compatible = "qcom,scm" },
> >  	{}
> >  };