linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dt-bindings: dmaengine: Add dmamux for CV18XX/SG200X series SoC

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, 26 Mar 2024 13:14:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>,
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, Liu Gui <kenneth.liu@...hgo.com>,
 Jingbao Qiu <qiujingbao.dlmu@...il.com>, dlan@...too.org,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dt-bindings: dmaengine: Add dmamux for
 CV18XX/SG200X series SoC

On 26/03/2024 13:06, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
e.
>>>> +	regmap_set_bits(dmamux->regmap,
>>>> +			DMAMUX_CH_REG(chid),
>>>> +			DMAMUX_CH_SET(chid, devid));
>>>> +
>>>> +	regmap_update_bits(dmamux->regmap, CV1800_SDMA_DMA_INT_MUX,
>>>> +			   DMAMUX_INT_CH_MASK(chid, cpuid),
>>>> +			   DMAMUX_INT_CH_BIT(chid, cpuid));
>>>
>>> I think this is.
>>
>> So where exactly? I don't see any define being used here.
>> CV1800_SDMA_DMA_INT_MUX is not in your header. DMAMUX_ is not in your
>> header. So what are you pointing?
>>
>> I don't understand this communication. Are you mocking me here or what?
>> It's waste of my time.
>>
> 
> I apologize for my misunderstanding and your wasted time. I had 
> previously thought that hardware constants is also binding. This 
> leads to a weird communication between us. Since I agree and 
> understand this file is not a binding, I will remove this file in
> the next version. Anyway, thanks for your kindly explanation.

OK, no problem. When I asked where do you use header, it should make you
think... remove the #include from the driver and everything still
compiles, so obviously header is not being used.

Best regards,
Krzysztof