From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757459Ab2AEN7T (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:59:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:56276 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753094Ab2AEN7S convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:59:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [46.116.5.104] In-Reply-To: <20120103233534.GC2492@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <1319536106-25802-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <1319536106-25802-2-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <20120103233534.GC2492@ponder.secretlab.ca> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:58:56 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] amp/remoteproc: add framework for controlling remote processors To: Grant Likely Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Brian Swetland , Arnd Bergmann , Rusty Russell , Tony Lindgren , Russell King , Greg KH , Stephen Boyd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >> +     /* go through the available ELF segments */ >> +     for (i = 0; i < ehdr->e_phnum; i++, phdr++) { >> +             u32 da = phdr->p_paddr; >> +             u32 memsz = phdr->p_memsz; >> +             u32 filesz = phdr->p_filesz; > > This could be an endianess problem.  If the endianess of the host and > the rproc are different, then what is the endianess of the elf file? > Is the endianess of the elf file verified before attempting to parse it? ... > Nitpick: A look up table would be easier to extend in the future. > > Otherwise; > > Acked-by: Grant Likely Thanks, Grant! If I may, I'll add something like this to the commit log: Acked-by: Grant Likely (minus two Reported-by issues) And then we could fix those two issues in two subsequent patches (carrying your Reported-by) so reviewing the change would be much easier, and we don't end up changing code (that has been lying in linux-next) just before it is sent it to Linus. Thanks a lot for your review! Ohad.