linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] arm64: dts: Add Arm Morello support

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: <Z720J5kXEnj5sZn0@J2N7QTR9R3>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:14:31 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] arm64: dts: Add Arm Morello support

Hi Sudeep,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:07:16PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:08:18AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > On 21/02/2025 18:54, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:03:39PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > >> This series adds dts support for the Arm Morello System Development
> > >> Platform.
> > >
> > > Do we actually need the dts for this board?
> > >
> > > I have one on my desk; it boots vanilla Debian 12 via UEFI + ACPI just
> > > fine, with the Debian 6.1.0-13-arm64 kernel.
> > >
> > > Is there something that we can only do with the DT? i.e. some
> > > functionality that isn't exposed via ACPI?
> > >
> > > How do you expect this DT to be used?
> >
> > There are functionalities that are not exposed via ACPI, e.g. gpu, dpu, i2c for
> > the phy, etc. My aim to have upstream support for all the hardware exposed by
> > the platform.
> 
> Does this address some of your concerns ? I do understand some of these
> are not well addressed in ACPI and hence people use DT as an alternative.

Yep; I'm happy with this so long as there's an actual functional reason
to have the DT, which it seems there is.

It would have been nice for that to be spelled out a bit clearer in the
cover / commit messages, but that's not important and doesn't need a
respin.

> I was thinking of queuing this in -next if all the bindings are acked.
> Let me know if you still have concerns and would like to avoid getting
> these merged. I will hold off then.

No need to hold off.

Sorry for the confusion; I should have been clearer with my questions.

Mark.