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  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]
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 07:33:52 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <>
To:     Rakesh Pillai <>
Cc:     Abhishek Kumar <>,
        Kalle Valo <>,
        LKML <>,
        ath10k <>,
        Brian Norris <>,
        linux-wireless <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        netdev <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ath10k: add option for chip-id based BDF selection


On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM Rakesh Pillai <> wrote:
> > What I'm trying to say is this.  Imagine that:
> >
> > a) the device tree has the "variant" property.
> >
> > b) the BRD file has two entries, one for "board-id" (1) and one for
> > "board-id + chip-id" (2).  It doesn't have one for "board-id + chip-id
> > + variant" (3).
> >
> > With your suggestion we'll see the "variant" property in the device
> > tree.  That means we'll search for (1) and (3).  (3) isn't there, so
> > we'll pick (1).  ...but we really should have picked (2), right?
> Do we expect board-2.bin to not be populated with the bdf with variant field (if its necessary ?)

The whole fact that there is a fallback to begin with implies that
there can be a mismatch between the board-2.bin and the device tree
file.  Once we accept that there can be a mismatch, it seems good to
try all 3 fallbacks in order.

> Seems fine for me, if we have 2 fallback names if that is needed.

OK, sounds good.  So hopefully Abhishek can post a v3 based on what's
in <> and you can confirm you're good with
it there?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists