linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: amba-pl011: Remove QDF2xxx workarounds

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: <226874eb-18c0-4834-aca5-46396b8a07e6@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:48:08 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
 Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: amba-pl011: Remove QDF2xxx workarounds

On 31.01.2024 14:44, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 03:27:20PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> This SoC family was destined for server use, featuring Qualcomm's very
>> interesting Kryo cores (before "Kryo" became a marketing term for Arm
>> cores with small modifications). It did however not leave the labs of
>> Qualcomm and presumably some partners, nor was it ever productized.
>>
>> Remove the workarounds, as they are long obsolete.
> 
> There's one in Linaro's test lab which gets used by KernelCI:
> 
>    https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/device_type/qcom-qdf2400
> 
> While the platform is pretty old it works well enough and provides
> coverage of server platforms, ideally more server vendors would arrange
> for their boards to be available but that's not actually the case yet.
> The fact that it's a unique implementation of the architecture is also
> interesting from a test point of view.  Given how trivial the workaround
> here is it seems more useful to keep the support, could we revert this
> commit please?

Right, sorry for the mess. It actually turned out that Qualcomm is apparently
still using some of these internally and was interested in still keeping it
alive, at least for the time being.. I mentioned this on another similarly-
themed patch threads, but forgot this one.

Should I submit a revert, or can this be dropped?

Konrad