linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Update compatible strings for eud

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2b118a49-2229-4346-ab21-0aa5377d7a4e@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:30:01 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
 Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>,
 Souradeep Chowdhury <quic_schowdhu@...cinc.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
 Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@...cinc.com>,
 Elson Serrao <quic_eserrao@...cinc.com>
Cc: cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Update compatible
 strings for eud

On 14.08.2024 8:15 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/08/2024 22:03, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/8/2024 4:00 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2024 20:32, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>> The EUD can more accurately be divided into two types; a secure type
>>>> which requires that certain registers be updated via scm call and a
>>>> nonsecure type which must access registers nonsecurely. Thus, change
>>>> the compatible strings to reflect secure and nonsecure eud usage.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml | 6 +++---
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
>>>> index f2c5ec7e6437..476f92768610 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml
>>>> @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ properties:
>>>>     compatible:
>>>>       items:
>>>>         - enum:
>>>> -          - qcom,sc7280-eud
>>>> -      - const: qcom,eud
>>>> +          - qcom,secure-eud
>>>> +          - qcom,eud
>>> Commit msg did not explain me why DT bindings rules are avoided here and
>>> you drop existing SoC specific compatible.
>>>
>>> This really does not look like having any sense at all, I cannot come up
>>> with logic behind dropping existing users. You could deprecate it, but
>>> then why exactly this device should have exception from generic bindings
>>> rule?
>>
>> Understood. I won't drop this compatible string. Is alright to add the 
>> additional compatible as is?
> 
> You always need SoC specific compatible.

Melody, is there any way to discover (that won't crash the board if we
guess wrong) whether secure accessors are needed?

Konrad