linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Allow coreboot modules to autoload and enable cbmem in the arm64 defconfig

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: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:17:07 -0500
From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
	Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	kernel@...labora.com, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Allow coreboot modules to autoload and enable
 cbmem in the arm64 defconfig

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 03:02:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024, at 14:56, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:50:04AM -0500, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> >> Nícolas F. R. A. Prado (4):
> >>       firmware: coreboot: Generate modalias uevent for devices
> >>       firmware: coreboot: Generate aliases for coreboot modules
> >>       firmware: coreboot: Replace tag with id table in driver struct
> >>       arm64: defconfig: Enable support for cbmem entries in the coreboot table
> >
> > is it ok for Tzung-Bi to merge this last patch for the defconfig through the
> > chrome-platform-firmware tree?
> 
> I would much prefer to see this patch get sent to soc@...nel.org
> so I can pick it up through the soc tree. I'm usually not worried
> about bisection issues with defconfig changes since most users
> have their own .config anyway, and in this case I don't see
> any strict dependency and would just merge the patch directly.

Sounds good, I'll send it separately there. And you're right, the patch doesn't
have any dependency.

Thanks,
Nícolas