linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] soc: qcom: Move some socinfo defines to the header, expand them

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: <2c2bca6c-b429-4cef-b63a-ee3bd6c9eecb@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:05:30 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
 Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
 Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] soc: qcom: Move some socinfo defines to the header,
 expand them



On 4/11/24 20:55, Elliot Berman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:29AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> In preparation for parsing the chip "feature code" (FC) and "product
>> code" (PC) (essentially the parameters that let us conclusively
>> characterize the sillicon we're running on, including various speed
>> bins), move the socinfo version defines to the public header and
>> include some more FC/PC defines.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>> ---

[...]

>> +	SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE,
>> +};
> 
> SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE was a convenient limit since we mapped
> SOCINFO_FC_AA -> string "AA" via an array, and we've only needed the 8
> feature codes so far.
> 
> We should remove the EXT_RESERVE and test for the Y0-YF (internal
> feature code) values instead.

OK

> 
>> +
>> +/* Internal feature codes */
>> +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 0xf */
>> +#define SOCINFO_FC_Yn(n)		(0xf1 + n)
>> +#define SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE		SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10)
> 
> We probably should've named this SOCINFO_FC_INT_MAX. Reserve implies
> it's reserved for some future use, but it's really the max value it
> could be.

So, should SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10) also be considered valid, or is (0xf)
the last one?

> 
>> +
>> +/* Product codes */
>> +#define SOCINFO_PC_UNKNOWN		0
>> +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 8, the rest is reserved */
>> +#define SOCINFO_PCn(n)			(n + 1)
>> +#define SOCINFO_PC_RESERVE		(BIT(31) - 1)
> 
> Similar comments here as the SOCINFO_FC_EXT_*. It's more like known
> values are [0,8], but more values could come in future chipsets.

Ok, sounds good, I'll remove the comment then

Konrad