On 01/25/2018 03:51 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Sorry I don't get it. Is that some sort of hardening requirement? If the framework doesn't cause those pins to be touched I fail to see how it could hurt to have the other addresses listed. I'm sure with some effort protected addresses could be crafted in other ways to cause an XPU violation to the same place.
It's for my own sanity. By ensuring that those physical addresses are not ever present in the driver or any data structure, I can fend off, "Hey Timur, your gpio driver is causing XPU violations again, heh heh".
-- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
