linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: Remove not needed check in disable aspm link

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:	Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:04:46 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	Roman Yepishev <roman.yepishev@...il.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Remove not needed check in disable aspm link

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:47:08 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think you're saying that in systems that support both acpiphp and
> > pciehp, we should be using pciehp, but we currently use acpiphp.  If
> > so, that's certainly a bug.  How serious is it?  Is it a disaster if
> > we use acpiphp until we can resolve this cleanly?  Are there a lot of
> > systems that claim to support acpiphp but it doesn't actually work?
> 
> No sure. To make acpiphp would need more expertise in bios.
> Normally BIOS vendor would have half done work there, and will need
> OEM or system vendor have someone to make it work ....
> You would not want to read asl code in DSDT to help them out.
> That is not something that we can control.

However, pciehp may simply not work by itself on those systems.

It's pretty much like saying "Oh, _CRS may be screwed up, so let's just ignore
it", which isn't overly smart.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, 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/