linux-kernel - Re: [linux, dev-4.10, 6/6] drivers/hwmon: Add a driver for a generic PECI hwmon

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:26:05 -0800
From:   Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jdelvare@...e.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...id.au,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joel@....id.au,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [linux, dev-4.10, 6/6] drivers/hwmon: Add a driver for a generic
 PECI hwmon

On 1/11/2018 3:53 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:14:37PM -0800, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>> On 1/11/2018 2:18 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>>>> +static const struct of_device_id peci_of_table[] = {
>>>>>>> +	{ .compatible = "peci-hwmon", },
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This does not look like a reference to some piece of hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This driver provides generic PECI hwmon function to which controller has
>>>>> PECI HW such as Aspeed or Nuvoton BMC chip so it's not dependant on a
>>>>> specific hardware. Should I remove this or any suggestion?
>>>
>>> PECI seems to be an Intel thing. So at least it should be
>>>
>>>   { .compatible = "intel,peci-hwmon", }
>>>
>>> assuming it is actually compatible with the Intel specification.
>>>
>>> 	 Andrew
>>>
>>
>> Yes, PECI is an Intel thing but this driver is running on an ARM kernel on
>> Aspeed or Nuvoton chipsets for now. This driver will be monitoring a host
>> server's Intel CPU and DIMM which is running on a separated OS.
> 
> Hi Jae
> 
> You need to be careful with the name then. You should not claim the
> name 'peci' in case somebody actually implements a PECI driver which
> is compatible with Intel PECI.
> 
> However, looking at other comments, it seems like this part is going
> away, if you turn your code into a bus driver.
> 
>        Andrew
> 

Hi Andrew,

I see. I'll keep that in mind and will keep finding if there is any 
better way. Thanks for sharing your thought.

Jae