linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] dt-bindings: memory-controller: st,stm32: add 'power-domains' property

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: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:57:31 +0100
From: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...s.st.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley
	<conor@...nel.org>
CC: <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <richard@....at>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] dt-bindings: memory-controller: st,stm32: add
 'power-domains' property



On 2/13/24 12:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 11:57, Christophe Kerello wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/12/24 19:33, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 06:48:12PM +0100, Christophe Kerello wrote:
>>>> From: Patrick Delaunay <patrick.delaunay@...s.st.com>
>>>>
>>>> On STM32MP25 SOC, STM32 FMC2 memory controller is in a power domain.
>>>> Allow a single 'power-domains' entry for STM32 FMC2.
>>>
>>> This should be squashed with patch 1, since they both modify the same
>>> file and this power-domain is part of the addition of mp25 support.
>>
>> Hi Conor,
>>
>> Ok, I will squash this patch with patch 1.
>>
>>>
>>> If the mp1 doesn't have power domains, shouldn't you constrain the
>>> property to mp25 only?
>>>
>>
>> As this property is optional, I do not see the need to constrain the
>> property to MP25 only, but if you think that it should be the case, I
>> will do it.
> 
> The question is: is this property valid for the old/existing variant?
> 

Hi Krzysztof,

It is not currently valid but there is a plan to move MP1 on PSCI 
OS-initiated.

Regards,
Christophe Kerello.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>