netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ath10k: add option for chip-id based BDF selection

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]

Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 07:33:52 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Rakesh Pillai <pillair@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@...omium.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ath10k <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ath10k: add option for chip-id based BDF selection

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM Rakesh Pillai <pillair@...eaurora.org> 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 <https://crrev.com/c/2556437> and you can confirm you're good with
it there?

-Doug