linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] interconnect: qcom: glymur: Add Mahua SoC 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: <k54tulgkio5at744qcuhqijgb6hb6kjcahloyiiu3ujeoqoir4@vu3cuu7p4wvw>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:34:26 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Raviteja Laggyshetty <raviteja.laggyshetty@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Georgi Djakov <djakov@...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,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Odelu Kukatla <odelu.kukatla@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] interconnect: qcom: glymur: Add Mahua SoC support

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 06:40:13PM +0530, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote:
> On 1/23/2026 11:28 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 05:12:36PM +0000, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote:
> >> +static int glymur_qnoc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	if (device_is_compatible(&pdev->dev, "qcom,mahua-mc-virt")) {
> >> +		llcc_mc.channels = 8;
> >> +		ebi.channels = 8;
> >> +	} else if (device_is_compatible(&pdev->dev, "qcom,mahua-hscnoc")) {
> >> +		qns_llcc.channels = 8;
> >> +		chm_apps.channels = 4;
> >> +		qnm_pcie_west.buswidth = 32;
> >> +	} else if (device_is_compatible(&pdev->dev, "qcom,mahua-pcie-west-anoc")) {
> >> +		qns_pcie_west_mem_noc.buswidth = 32;
> >> +	}
> > 
> > Right here, set the node entries to NULL.
> 
> cnoc_cfg_nodes is declared as an array of const pointers, so the pointer
> values cannot be reassigned after initialization. To change the addresses,
> the const qualifier would need to be dropped. To preserve const, the 
> entire array has been duplicated instead by dropping the PCIE_3A related
> nodes.

Why? Just drop the const instead of creating unnecessary (almost)
duplication.

> > 
> >> +

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry