linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 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.

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

Thread overview: 8+ 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
2016-04-26 10:42 ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems 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 11:01     ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-04-26 11:02       ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-04-26 11:02     ` [PATCH v2] drivers: firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems 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 11:22       ` 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).