linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel

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: <20120410151943.GM7499@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:19:43 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86, intel_mid: ADC management

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Could you be more specific about what this early boot time stuff is?
> > Looking at the changelogs in there it all looks like the standard
> > battery monitoring and power supply stuff that these ADCs get used for -
> > just based on the changelogs there doesn't appear to be anything
> > remarkable here.

> It depends on the actual device but things the like battery management
> are a key one.

Right, like I say that all sounds totally standard and unremarkable.

> > We can't just keep on going round adding new custom interfaces every
> > time someone supports a new SoC - it means we end up having to sit and

> We can't go around blocking entire platforms because of the IIO blob. I
> raised this point with the whole previous *generation* of Intel SoC
> devices about IIO and nothing has been done about it.

Including by Intel, of course.

> Get IIO out of staing and we can look at it, until then IIO is staging
> code, it's not part of the kernel, it may never be part of the kernel,
> and it should never block actual kernel code.

That's not where the rest of the embedded community has been coming from
on this stuff and from a deployment point of view staging isn't really
that big a blocker to users.  We've had a lot of experience with trying
to follow that approach and the results haven't been great thus far.

Frankly at this point I don't understand why we can't just lift IIO out
of staging as-is, perhaps with the userspace ABI nobbled or moved into
debugfs for the time being if that's still a concern.  Alternatively
there is the option of you proposing some other generic framework.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)