linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: add QCrypto node

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: <2bc16a4e-96d6-4175-a52c-e344115fc4ac@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:50:41 +0530
From: Yuvaraj Ranganathan <quic_yrangana@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson
	<andersson@...nel.org>
CC: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p: add QCrypto node



On 3/1/2025 7:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/02/2025 15:14, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:01:16AM +0530, Yuvaraj Ranganathan wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2025 5:56 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:38:16PM +0530, Yuvaraj Ranganathan wrote:
>>>>> The initial QCE node change is reverted by the following patch 
>>>>
>>>> s/is/was/
>>>>
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250128115333.95021-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/
>>>>> because of the build warning,
>>>>>
>>>>>   sa8775p-ride.dtb: crypto@...a000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed:
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     'qcom,sa8775p-qce' is not one of ['qcom,ipq4019-qce', 'qcom,sm8150-qce']
>>>>>
>>>>> Add the QCE node back that fix the warnings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that adding this node back will fix the warning?
>>>>
>>>> I'd expect that you would say something like "The changes to the
>>>> Devicetree binding has accepted, so add the node back".
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bjorn
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yuvaraj Ranganathan <quic_yrangana@...cinc.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi
>>>>> index 23049cc58896..b0d77b109305 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sa8775p.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -2418,6 +2418,18 @@ cryptobam: dma-controller@...4000 {
>>>>>  				 <&apps_smmu 0x481 0x00>;
>>>>>  		};
>>>>>  
>>>>> +		crypto: crypto@...a000 {
>>>>> +			compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-qce", "qcom,sm8150-qce", "qcom,qce";
>>>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x01dfa000 0x0 0x6000>;
>>>>> +			dmas = <&cryptobam 4>, <&cryptobam 5>;
>>>>> +			dma-names = "rx", "tx";
>>>>> +			iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x480 0x00>,
>>>>> +				 <&apps_smmu 0x481 0x00>;
>>>>> +			interconnects = <&aggre2_noc MASTER_CRYPTO_CORE0 0
>>>>> +					 &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>;
>>>>> +			interconnect-names = "memory";
>>>>> +		};
>>>>> +
>>>>>  		stm: stm@...2000 {
>>>>>  			compatible = "arm,coresight-stm", "arm,primecell";
>>>>>  			reg = <0x0 0x4002000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>>
>>>
>>> DeviceTree bindings were accepted but the comptabile string does not
>>> properly bind to it. Hence, adding the correct binding string in the
>>> compatible has resolved the issue.
>>>
>>
>> Please then write that in the commit message.
>>
>>
>> That said, what did you base this patch on? While I have picked
>> Krzysztof's two reverts in my local tree, I have not yet published them.
>> So your patch is not even based on v6.14-rc1, which now is 4 weeks old.
>>
>> Patches sent upstream should be built and tested on a suitable upstream
>> branch!
> 
> I sent reverts because author, even though pinged more than once (!),
> ignored reported problems.
> 
> It seems that reverting the code gets some attention, so maybe author
> will fix the original issue and my reverts can be dropped/ignored.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

The original issue was not observed at our end during the first time
validation and its due to some environment issue. This patch does
resolves the issue and it is validated against the linux-next master branch.

Thanks,
Yuvaraj.