linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: ARM_DMA350 should depend on ARM/ARM64

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: <aAjTg8dgvxqLQOwQ@vaman>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 17:18:19 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: ARM_DMA350 should depend on ARM/ARM64

On 23-04-25, 13:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 12:59, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> > On 2025-04-22 7:11 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > The Arm DMA-350 controller is only present on Arm-based SoCs.
> >
> > Do you know that for sure? I certainly don't. This is a licensable,
> > self-contained DMA controller IP with no relationship whatsoever to any
> > particular CPU ISA - our other system IP products have turned up in the
> > wild paired with non-Arm CPUs, so I don't see any reason that DMA-350
> > wouldn't either.
> 
> The dependency can always be relaxed later, when the need arises.
> Note that currently there are no users at all...

True, but do we have any warnings generated as a result, if there are no
dependency should we still limit a driver to an arch?

-- 
~Vinod