linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] OLPC: Add support for calling into Open Firmware

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: <20080421130320.38b5f505@ephemeral>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:03:20 -0400
From:	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Joseph Fannin <jfannin@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jordan.crouse@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] OLPC: Add support for calling into Open Firmware

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:54:13 +0100
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 10:24 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > I'm not actually convinced that we *do* want to keep OFW resident in memory,
> > especially given the memory tricks we need to play.  I also don't actually
> > like the OFW interface that we.  The debugging aspect of it was a
> > compelling argument up until a week ago (when kernel debuggers started
> > finally finding their way into the kernel).
> 
> I don't actually think that the debugging aspect was _ever_ a compelling
> argument. It might have made it theoretically possible for _Mitch_ to
> debug kernel problems, should he be inclined to do so -- but for the
> rest of us mere mortals it's just a PITA trying to keep OpenFirmware
> live. A gdb stub is much more useful, in my experience.
> 
> > However, until we clean up the promfs stuff, there's no chance of getting
> > an OFW device tree upstream.
> 
> I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to create a 'flattened'b
> device-tree during early boot, like the PowerPC kernel does. And use it
> thereafter, having quiesced OpenFirmware. Haven't we already been
> working on unifying this between SPARC and PowerPC kernels?

Quite simply, it's a lot more work (*and* we have to play nice w/
sparc and ppc).  I had intended to eventually do it, but first I wanted
to get this stuff in for 2.6.26 so that we could at least boot upstream
kernels on XOs.

I was also hoping to not get into this conversation, but alas.. too
late. :)


> 
> I definitely don't think we need to play these tricks to keep
> OpenFirmware resident while the kernel is running. Take a look at your
> second patch -- it's _all_ just lookups in the device-tree, and you're
> inventing a new way to do it instead of using the existing one.
> 


-- 
Need a kernel or Debian developer?  Contact me, I'm looking for contracts.
--
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/