From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pv50p00im-ztdg10012101.me.com (pv50p00im-ztdg10012101.me.com [17.58.6.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A78EE27004B for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=17.58.6.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740613974; cv=none; b=aIbWm7BB7HNft/kF/Il5WISQtDiHdM9DxOwVBJT8ttv49uhh2Bj9k4V8QcpKTvFyhMwL+vVcIEcDtnzXxV0E8hNRmjYWffOLNS2YbHsbRD505T+n4DPV8mIzsY/N5sWvAliNPwUTgiH+2kwmlwLtjSB+QCZ4s3mjyl1x0ezJ+Eo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740613974; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MRaEsWys87Pn4a0qFFl/SQ4wZqGYEGJJfYgg4Zvyktg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=lfsVRNZpiEwmGNlUQngFCS2TolLHd4mFcX2m+0HDb31RwuEtpLyNJx6SQzHwHNrAW6a903kzsrt5ljwdcaPvYPpUcGD/QgaeLfazA1+4ZkYAyAwj6Yw66zeUl+taG6ncW7jKfjuScMvBFlLWgxV9doujT/jeT04TluyiXzLEubQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=icloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=icloud.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.com header.i=@icloud.com header.b=KA+cbgny; arc=none smtp.client-ip=17.58.6.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=icloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=icloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.com header.i=@icloud.com header.b="KA+cbgny" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; bh=i7mhFoUi2tw6qZatddnr2O9pvtJog0jFw0rliAU9o6A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type:x-icloud-hme; b=KA+cbgnyDoqsho3Q5gI5znPAuKp2oQfrJDAeF5jYGHtDbBWw5F6EaB4nM6J8CECnI f07mP0H9If/o0dwnt0zNYHSy2L4YM1PqRI+3C3RvNdR1HaGsKIuivxxB9HEK8EVUnE RQg2fGLLtEsQb0F1EYnOEa93lMZ/+s3+oWCzILuxcvEpOeU0fERWoID4oJi1JBB8AS k3OQy9WEARP2E86PFlOqxsByo4yvs+b0bLR2yAHvt60/fVXcEunGM0tnuHHJn143zM J7s+6oz1sCjnJ9F6qNKUfTrDjeb+cfAlz9cnuV64WVCvPyfQLokQQEhErWv+Ixp/7A gfSBD6DhAQBjw== Received: from [192.168.1.26] (pv50p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.56.9.10]) by pv50p00im-ztdg10012101.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4903740566; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:52:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <67308adf-65bd-489c-80cb-5354ef202b51@icloud.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:52:13 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/14] of: reserved-memory: Fix using wrong number of cells to get property 'alignment' To: Rob Herring Cc: William McVicker , Zijun Hu , Saravana Kannan , Maxime Ripard , Robin Murphy , Grant Likely , Marc Zyngier , Andreas Herrmann , Marek Szyprowski , Catalin Marinas , Mike Rapoport , Oreoluwa Babatunde , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com References: <20250109-of_core_fix-v4-0-db8a72415b8c@quicinc.com> <20250109-of_core_fix-v4-9-db8a72415b8c@quicinc.com> <20250113232551.GB1983895-robh@kernel.org> <97ac58b1-e37c-4106-b32b-74e041d7db44@quicinc.com> <20250226194505.GA3407277-robh@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Zijun Hu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025/2/27 05:30, Rob Herring wrote: >> this change ? > We don't know that unless you tested every dts file. We only know that > no one has reported an issue yet. > Sorry, my mistake to post the question here for convenience. actually, i want to ask William this question, and he/she shared applet of the downstream code. > Even if we did test everything, there are DT's that aren't in the > kernel tree. It's not like this downstream DT is using some > undocumented binding or questionable things. It's a standard binding. > IMO, that may be a downstream bug since they don't refer to binding spec to set property 'alignment'. > Every time this code is touched, it breaks. This is not even the only > breakage right now[1]. > indeed. >> 2) IMO, the spec may be right. >> The type of size is enough to express any alignment wanted. >> For several kernel allocators. type of 'alignment' should be the type >> of 'size', NOT the type of 'address' > As I said previously, it can be argued either way. > > Rob > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250226115044.zw44p5dxlhy5eoni@pengutronix.de/