linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: add cpu cache information to ExynosAuto-v920

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <090d01db77e8$8687db10$93979130$@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 21:40:48 +0530
From: "Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
To: "'Krzysztof Kozlowski'" <krzk@...nel.org>, "'Sudeep Holla'"
	<sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: "'Devang Tailor'" <dev.tailor@...sung.com>, <robh@...nel.org>,
	<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <faraz.ata@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: add cpu cache information to
 ExynosAuto-v920

Hi Krzysztof

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 9:22 PM
> To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>; Alim Akhtar
> <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
> Cc: 'Devang Tailor' <dev.tailor@...sung.com>; robh@...nel.org;
> krzk+dt@...nel.org; conor+dt@...nel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; faraz.ata@...sung.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: add cpu cache information to
> ExynosAuto-v920
> 
> On 31/01/2025 14:27, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>  > +		l3_cache_cl0: l3-cache0 {
> >> You can add one node for cl0 and cl1, say "l3_cache_cl0_cl1" and
> >> Remove the specific node for CL1, because both are same.
> >>
> >
> > What do you mean by "both are same" ?
> > Do you mean both have exact same properties but are physically
> > different caches ? OR Do you mean it is just one shared cache ?
> >
> > If former, we still need distinct node to get the cacheinfo about
> > shareability correct. If this is about avoiding duplication of errors,
> > you can probably define some macro and avoid it, but we need 2 nodes
> > in the devicetree.
> >
> > If latter, you suggestion is correct.
> 
> No answers here, so I drop this patch from my queue.
> 
It took sometime to get the confirmation internally (because of new year holiday)
Just replied to Sudeep. It will be great if you can consider this patch for this cycle. 
Thanks!

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof