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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e3cfa966-5b9d-8b81-c2aa-78e01e618e4e@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:43:44 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...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 23/03/2023 10:44, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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.

I'll split the series so the sc7180/so on bits can go in and we'll
figure out compatibility for the rest later...

Best regards,
Krzysztof