All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:01:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160426110147.GC20836@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31757054.8aSO57qemx@wuerfel>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:49:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2016 11:42:58 Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On 22/04/16 16:18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > Currently ARM CPUs DT bindings allows different enable-method value for
> > > PSCI based systems. On ARM 64-bit this property is required and must be
> > > "psci" while on ARM 32-bit systems this property is optional and must
> > > be "arm,psci" if present.
> > >
> > > However, "arm,psci" has always been the compatible string for the PSCI
> > > node, and was never intended to be the enable-method. So this is a bug
> > > in the binding and not a deliberate attempt at specifying 32-bit
> > > differently.
> > >
> > > This is problematic if 32-bit OS is run on 64-bit system which has
> > > "psci" as enable-method rather than the expected "arm,psci".
> > >
> > > So let's unify the value into "psci" and remove support for "arm,psci"
> > > before it finds any users.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew@arm.com>
> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
> > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 1 -
> > >   drivers/firmware/psci.c                        | 2 +-
> > >   2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > v2->v1:
> > >       - Added Mark and Lorenzo's ACKs
> > >       - Updated commit message to specify that it also conflicts with
> > >         PSCI compatible(from Mark's reply on the thread)
> > >
> > > Hi ARM-SoC guys,
> > >
> > > Can you please pick up this single fix for PSCI binding/driver for v4.6 ?
> > >
> > 
> > Gentle ping to include this in next round of arm-soc fixes. It would be
> > good to get this fixed before v4.6 as we don't want to have user of the
> > binding which we want to remove in the release.
> > 
> 
> Applied to the fixes branch. I have to admit that I don't understand
> how the compatible string is really used here, so I have to trust that
> this cannot break any existing machine.

The buggy code was merged for v4.6-rc1, so this hasn't been in a
release, and should not break an existing user.

No compatible string is used here, which is precisely the confusion this
addresses. The PSCI enable-method != the compatible string for a PSCI
node, but the two got confused in a documentation patch, and then that
confusion spread to code.

Thanks,
Mark.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	arm-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
	devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Maxime Ripard
	<maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi
	<lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:01:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160426110147.GC20836@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31757054.8aSO57qemx@wuerfel>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:49:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2016 11:42:58 Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On 22/04/16 16:18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > Currently ARM CPUs DT bindings allows different enable-method value for
> > > PSCI based systems. On ARM 64-bit this property is required and must be
> > > "psci" while on ARM 32-bit systems this property is optional and must
> > > be "arm,psci" if present.
> > >
> > > However, "arm,psci" has always been the compatible string for the PSCI
> > > node, and was never intended to be the enable-method. So this is a bug
> > > in the binding and not a deliberate attempt at specifying 32-bit
> > > differently.
> > >
> > > This is problematic if 32-bit OS is run on 64-bit system which has
> > > "psci" as enable-method rather than the expected "arm,psci".
> > >
> > > So let's unify the value into "psci" and remove support for "arm,psci"
> > > before it finds any users.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Soby Mathew <Soby.Mathew-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> > > ---
> > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 1 -
> > >   drivers/firmware/psci.c                        | 2 +-
> > >   2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > v2->v1:
> > >       - Added Mark and Lorenzo's ACKs
> > >       - Updated commit message to specify that it also conflicts with
> > >         PSCI compatible(from Mark's reply on the thread)
> > >
> > > Hi ARM-SoC guys,
> > >
> > > Can you please pick up this single fix for PSCI binding/driver for v4.6 ?
> > >
> > 
> > Gentle ping to include this in next round of arm-soc fixes. It would be
> > good to get this fixed before v4.6 as we don't want to have user of the
> > binding which we want to remove in the release.
> > 
> 
> Applied to the fixes branch. I have to admit that I don't understand
> how the compatible string is really used here, so I have to trust that
> this cannot break any existing machine.

The buggy code was merged for v4.6-rc1, so this hasn't been in a
release, and should not break an existing user.

No compatible string is used here, which is precisely the confusion this
addresses. The PSCI enable-method != the compatible string for a PSCI
node, but the two got confused in a documentation patch, and then that
confusion spread to code.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-26 11:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-22 15:18 [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64, 32}-bit systems Sudeep Holla
2016-04-22 15:18 ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems Sudeep Holla
2016-04-26 10:42 ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-26 10:42   ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-26 10:49   ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64, 32}-bit systems Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-26 10:49     ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-26 11:01     ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-04-26 11:01       ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-26 11:02       ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64, 32}-bit systems Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-26 11:02         ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-26 11:02     ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-26 11:02       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-26 11:02     ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64, 32}-bit systems Jisheng Zhang
2016-04-26 11:02       ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-04-26 11:22       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-04-26 11:22         ` Sudeep Holla

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160426110147.GC20836@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.