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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:44:04 +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 Thu, 23 Mar 2023 at 08:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/03/2023 23:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What do you want to update in the driver? What's going to happen with
> it? What is missing?

Some of these platforms do not have CPUfreq support, which will most
likely require programming of cluster and L2/L3 clocks being part of
this region.

For the reference, I think that sc7180/sm8150/other new platforms are
proper examples of 'compatible' devices, so the patchset itself has a
correct/good idea beneath. It's just that additional research might be
required for the older platforms.


--
With best wishes
Dmitry