linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: cheza doesn't support LMh node

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, 24 Aug 2023 11:24:48 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
Cc:     cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: cheza doesn't support LMh node

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:28 PM David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz> wrote:
>
> Cheza firmware doesn't allow controlling LMh from the operating system.
>
> Fixes: 36c6581214c4 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Add support for LMh node")
> Suggested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> index d86b0d112110..8cc8fc290fd3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ panel_in_edp: endpoint {
>         };
>  };
>
> +&cpufreq_hw {
> +       /delete-property/ interrupts-extended; /* reference to lmh_cluster[01] */
> +};
> +
>  &psci {
>         /delete-node/ power-domain-cpu0;
>         /delete-node/ power-domain-cpu1;
> @@ -275,6 +279,14 @@ &BIG_CPU_SLEEP_1
>                            &CLUSTER_SLEEP_0>;
>  };
>
> +&lmh_cluster0 {
> +       status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&lmh_cluster1 {
> +       status = "disabled";
> +};

It's not a huge deal to me, but as I understand it usually you'd put
the "disabled" in sdm845.dtsi and then it would be up to all the other
sdm845 boards to mark this as "okay".


>  /*
>   * Reserved memory changes
>   *
> @@ -338,6 +350,8 @@ flash@0 {
>
>
>  &apps_rsc {
> +       /delete-property/ power-domains;
> +

Is the deletion of the "power-domains" here related to LMh? That seems
like it was added to sdm845.dtsi in a separate commit that doesn't
talk about LMh at all...

-Doug