linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial support for exynos8895 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]

Message-ID: <b926c116-7d5b-4bb6-8199-b7653fc5794b@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:25:55 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ivaylo Ivanov <ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/10] arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial support for
 exynos8895 SoC

On 18/09/2024 19:54, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>> +		cpu3: cpu@103 {
>>> +			device_type = "cpu";
>>> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a53";
>>> +			reg = <0x103>;
>>> +			enable-method = "psci";
>>> +		};
>>> +
>>> +		cpu4: cpu@0 {
>> Why cpu@0 is cpu4 not cpu0? Anyway, these should be ordered by unit
>> address.
> 
> cpu@100 is the boot core of the first cluster consisting of cortex-a53
> 
> cores, hence why it's labelled as cpu0. The second cluster contains
> 
> the Mongoose cores, labelled and ordered after the first cluster.
> 
> 
> It's ordered like so on a lot of SoCs for sanity's sake, hence why I
> 
> believe it should stay like that.

I tend to switch to style expressed in DTS coding style, especially that
we might use at some point sorting tool which would then need exception
for CPUs. Keep existing labels, assuming they reflect reality, but order
by unit address.

> 
> 
> If you still think that they must be ordered by unit address, please
> 
> explicitly let me know so that I include that change in the v5.
> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof