linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver

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:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:05:03 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@...aro.org, David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 7:20:42 PM CEST Imran Khan wrote:
> On 10/26/2016 2:19 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:23:34 PM CEST Imran Khan wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2016 4:03 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>>> +/* socinfo: sysfs functions */
> >>>
> >>> This seems overly verbose, having both raw and human-readable
> >>> IDs is generally not necessary, pick one of the two. If you
> >>> need any fields that we don't already support in soc_device,
> >>> let's talk about adding them to the generic structure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Okay. I will go for human readable IDs. Can we add 2 more fields
> >> in the generic structure.
> >> These 2 fields would be:
> >>
> >> vendor: A string for vendor name
> >> serial_number: A string containing serial number for the platform
> > 
> > 
> > serial_number seems straightforward, adding this seems like a good
> > idea. I don't understand yet what would go into the vendor field
> > though. For this particular driver, is it always "Qualcomm", or
> > would it be a third-party that makes a device based on that chip?
> > 
> 
> As we are talking about generic soc_device_attribute fields, I was hoping that
> having a vendor field would be helpful as along with family it would provide
> a more thorough information. Also as more than one foundries may be used for 
> a soc, can we have a field say foundry_id to provide this information.

My first feeling is that this 'vendor' information can should be
derived from the family. It's also not clear what would happen
to this when a company gets bought. E.g. the Oxnas product family
was subsequently owned by Oxford, PLX, Avago and Broadcom, and the
mxs family was Sigmatel, Freescale, now NXP and might soon be
Qualcomm. What would you put in there in this case?

	Arnd