linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: usi: allow 64-bit address space

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: <f1ace942-620e-43fe-93bd-aac184aa7970@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:37:11 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ivaylo Ivanov <ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: usi: allow 64-bit
 address space

On 24/07/2025 09:02, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
> On 7/24/25 09:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/07/2025 10:21, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>> On 7/23/25 11:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 03:10:36PM +0300, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>>>> Some device trees, like the exynos2200 one, configure the root node
>>>>> with #address-cells and #size-cells set to 2. However, the usi binding
>>>>> expects 32 bit address space only. Allow these determining properties to
>>>> So if USI expects 32 bit, then why do we allow 64?
>>>>
>>>> Switching this to 2 means you use 64-bit addressing for children
>>> I don't, but the main point was to avoid defining ranges for every single usi
>> I do not understand your "I don't", because you do.
> 
> I meant it in the "I don't _need_ to explicitly use that, but it's _nice_ to have"
> way, so I don't have to clutter the nodes with address translations in ranges.

It is not nice to have. The address space should not grow above the
device limits or even above the needs (sometime ago Rob explicitly asked
for that). Changing to 64-bit just because you do not want to add ranges
property is not correct, because it misses the main point: what is the
address space?

Changing to 64-bit because that's the address space would be fine, but
that was not argued here.

I did not check in the datasheets, but I assume these devices want
32-bit address space and that's how it should stay.

Best regards,
Krzysztof