linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mrst: add SFI platform device parsing code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100920152705.GJ3414@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:27:06 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mrst: add SFI platform device parsing code

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:27:26PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:

> > It's rather concerning that the parser here needs to have all this
> > knowledge about the specific chips that will be on the boards.  Is
> > there a plan for how this will be managed once system integrators
> > begin putting other chips onto Moorestown boards?

> For a device that doesn't need any private structure passing it's just
> a case of knowing the Linux name that matches the firmware description.
> For a chip that already has a Linux driver that expects private data
> (or a new driver that needs to) the info has to come from somewhere and
> Linux packages it in per device fashion.

Right, we need to do something and given that folks decided that OF
wasn't for them... :/

> The parser has the knowledge precisely because we don't want to put the
> knowledge in the driver.

This is precisely the opposite approach to that which has been taken
with all the OF stuff where individual drivers take care of parsing
their own data out of the OF tree.  I guess it'd be good if we could
achieve some level of consistency on this one, though I have this
horrible feeling that we're going to end up with all sorts of board
specific workarounds in here, especially around things like audio where
you've got multiple chips working together.

The OF approach does have the advantage of avoiding collisions between
multiple devices, and gives us some hope that the driver maintainers may
have seen the definitions that are being created for the BIOSes.
--
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/