linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memory: tegra: Add dummy implementation on Tegra194

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: <1ebfbbec-d5cf-c6ac-2cf1-eab970903500@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 15:29:15 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory: tegra: Add dummy implementation on Tegra194

On 10/07/2023 15:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/06/2023 18:01, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> With the introduction of commit 9365bf006f53 ("PCI: tegra194: Add
>>> interconnect support in Tegra234"), the PCI driver on Tegra194 and later
>>> requires an interconnect provider. However, a provider is currently only
>>> exposed on Tegra234 and this causes PCI on Tegra194 to defer probe
>>> indefinitely.
>>>
>>> Fix this by adding a dummy implementation on Tegra194. This allows nodes
>>> to be provided to interconnect consumers, but doesn't do any bandwidth
>>> accounting or frequency scaling.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9365bf006f53 ("PCI: tegra194: Add interconnect support in Tegra234")
>>> Reported-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>>
>> Applied with checkpatch warning. Please be sure you run checkpatch
>> before sending the patches.
> 
> Are you referring to the Reported-by/Closes complaint? 

Yes.

> I didn't include
> a URL here because this came from an internal test report and there's no
> corresponding public reference.

Ah, ok, apologies for pickiness then. :)

> 
> I suppose I could've left out the Reported-by altogether.

I think it is fine. Checkpatch warning is just advisory.


Best regards,
Krzysztof