| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090623202302.GA15265@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:23:02 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> Cc: sfi-devel@...plefirmware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2.6.32] Simple Firmware Interface (SFI): initial support On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:00:55PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > But given that the hardware is fixed (it was fixed over a year ago), > the question becomes what does ACPI mean on such a platform? > It turns out that if you look at the ACPI spec and delete all the > things that could not possibly apply to MRST, then you are left > with very little. Right, but instead you've effectively taken ACPI, done s/XSDT/SYST/ and then only supported a subset of the static tables and added some others. In return we gain two implementations to debug. I'm absolutely fine with the concept of a cut-down ACPI, but I'm pretty uncomfortable with it being implemented as a single-vendor spec. Right now SFI's a reimplementation of functionality we already have for the benefit of a single chipset, whereas instead it could have been a refactoring of the ACPI codebase to allow vendors to include whatever subset of the ACPI functionality they felt necessary. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists