linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Move L3 cache under CPUs in RK356x SoC dtsi

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: <2007608.CrzyxZ31qj@phil>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 10:48:03 +0200
From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject:
 Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Move L3 cache under CPUs in RK356x SoC dtsi

Am Donnerstag, 26. September 2024, 10:32:17 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
> Hello Heiko,
> 
> On 2024-09-26 10:24, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 26. September 2024, 09:49:18 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
> >> Move the "l3_cache" node under the "cpus" node in the dtsi file for 
> >> Rockchip
> >> RK356x SoCs.  There's no need for this cache node to be at the higher 
> >> level.
> >> 
> >> Fixes: 8612169a05c5 ("arm64: dts: rockchip: Add cache information to 
> >> the SoC dtsi for RK356x")
> >> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > 
> > I think the commit message needs a bit more rationale on why this is a
> > stable-worthy fix. Because from the move and commit message it reads
> > like a styling choice ;-) .
> > 
> > I do agree that it makes more sense as child of cpus, but the commit
> > message should also elaborate on why that would matter for stable.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!  Perhaps it would be the best to simply drop 
> the
> submission to stable kernels...  Believe it or not, :) I spent a fair 
> amount
> of time deliberating over the submission to stable, but now I think it's
> simply better to omit that and not increase the amount of patches that 
> go
> into stable unnecessary.
> 
> Would you like me to send the v2 with no Cc to stable, or would you 
> prefer
> to drop that line yourself?

I'm hopeful that I'll remember to drop it :-), so I guess no need
to resend for that.

Heiko