linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] mailbox/arm64/ qcom: rework compatibles for fallback

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:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 00:28:55 +0200
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] mailbox/arm64/ qcom: rework compatibles for fallback

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 19:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 16/03/2023 07:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 14/03/2023 13:16, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On 14/03/2023 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since v1
> >>> ================
> >>> 1. Rebase
> >>> 2. Make msm8994 fallback for several variants, not msm8953, because the latter
> >>>     actually might take some clocks.
> >>
> >> Although the approach looks correct, I think that in some cases it tries
> >> to mark devices compatible judging from the current driver, not from the
> >> hardware itself.
> >
> > Which is what compatibility is about...

Well, I was trying to say that once we update the driver, the devices
will not be compatible. But probably our definitions of being
compatible differ.

> >
> >>
> >> For the reference, on msm8994 the apcs is a clock controller for the l2
> >> clocks (which we do not support yet). If I'm not mistaken, on msm8976
> >> the apcs region contains a mux for the cluster1 clocks. On sdm630/660
> >> the apcs region also seems to be involved in CPU clocks scaling.
> >
> > The question is this means they are incompatible?
>
> Since there are no more comments I assume they are actually compatible
> in the terms of SW interface.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry