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: <20080421154618.2ed4978f@ephemeral>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:46:18 -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 20:18:11 +0100
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 13:03 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Quite simply, it's a lot more work (*and* we have to play nice w/
> > sparc and ppc).  
> 
> It's only more work because we did it the wrong way in the first place.
> If only someone had pointed it out at the time... :)
> 

Yes, and if only we had an infinite number of kernel hackers who had time
to work on such things, then we could've done things differently.


> For interaction with device-tree properties in generic code, you should
> be using the functions defined in <linux/of.h>.
> 

At the time [the OFW interface] was written, linux/of.h didn't *exist*.


> Creating the static device-tree before we quiesce OpenFirmware surely
> shouldn't be so hard? Can't we cut and paste most of that code anyway?
> 

We're not adding a device tree right now, we're adding a method for
querying OFW for information.  Eventually that information should be
obtained from a device tree.  However, that's going to take additional time,
and I'd like to get rid of some of these patches that we've been carrying
around.


> > 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.
> 
> Is it only the things in your second patch which need to be made to
> work? One of them was already working, by grubbing around in the BIOS
> directly -- so all we need is the board revision, isn't it? Can we get
> that from the EC for now?
> 


Well, no, it wasn't already working; that's the reason this whole
thread started.  It was crashing someone's machine.  That's why the OFW
interface, as imperfect as it is, is an _improvement_.



-- 
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/