linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 2.6.32] Simple Firmware Interface (SFI): initial support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	sfi-devel@...plefirmware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2.6.32] Simple Firmware Interface (SFI): initial support

> > not enthusiastic about seeing this presented as a fait accompli in 
> > generic driver code, rather than under arch/x86/moorestown.
> 
> Certainly wouldn't be a real problem if it started there and migrated
> if/when it proves to be more generic.

There are no drivers in drivers/sfi/, nor will there ever be.

I followed the broken topology used by ACPI, which has both drivers
and non-driver-platform-dependent-code in drivers/acpi/.

I did propose fixing ACPI at one point, but there was no consensus
on where platform dependent non-driver code that runs on multiple
architectures should live.  (eg, where to put drivers/acpi/acpica/*)

SFI is largely in the same boat.  Though one could argue
that all of SFI could live under arch/x86 someplace,
though it will be accessed by more than moorestown specific code.

cheers,
-Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/