linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem

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]

Message-ID: <13426df10701111111y57776285ma14b6effb236af58@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:11:32 -0700
From:	"ron minnich" <rminnich@...il.com>
To:	"Stefan Reinauer" <stepan@...esystems.de>
Cc:	"OLPC Developer's List" <devel@...top.org>,
	"Linux Kernel ML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Mitch Bradley" <wmb@...mworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem

On 1/11/07, Stefan Reinauer <stepan@...esystems.de> wrote:

> This works fine for just passing the device tree, but it will fail for
> the next step of being able to use the firmware in the OS, and returning
> sanely to the firmware.

And why is it we need to do that, presently? And how, in a virtualized
environment, for example, would you plan to support this calling into
firmware? (I sort of know how IBM does it, I am wondering how OFW
would plan to do it).

We can standardize passing a device tree structure across a very wide
range of environments. But supporting callbacks is necessarily going
to be a much smaller range of environments. It sounds, however, like
it will be possible to do both the callback and non-callback cases, so
I think I'm fine with that anyway. I will wait for Segher's patch.

thanks

ron
-
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/