linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Move mpss

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: <ZQRkRugxT4n9xIhS@gerhold.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 16:03:50 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Move mpss_mem size to
 boards

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 03:51:52PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 11.09.2023 19:41, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > The modem firmware size is typically highly device-specific.
> > The current size of the mpss_mem region in msm8916.dtsi (0x2b00000)
> > only works for some APQ8016 devices without full-featured modem,
> > such as the DragonBoard 410c.
> > 
> > The full modem firmware is typically about twice as large (~45 MiB
> > -> ~90 MiB) but also varies by a few MiB from device to device. Since
> > these devices are quite memory-constrained nowadays it's important to
> > minimize the unnecessary memory reservations.
> > 
> > Make it clear that each board needs to specify the necessary mpss_mem
> > size by replacing the DB410c-specific size in msm8916.dtsi with a
> > simple comment. &mpss_mem is disabled by default so it's fine to leave
> > some properties up to the boards if they want to enable it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
> > ---
> Any reason not to squash it with one of the earlier patches then?
> 

I'm not strictly opposed but these are really two independent changes.
One drops the fixed memory regions and makes the allocation dynamic,
in the SoC dtsi. This one moves board-specific information out of the
SoC dtsi (to the boards).

Thanks,
Stephan