linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

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: <20120709123253.GA31383@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:32:56 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 04:29:08AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> While mandating FDT is a massive advance over arm32, if there's a chance 
> that ACPI-based AArch64 platforms will ship in a similar timeframe to 
> FDT then I think we should ensure that ACPI and FDT are merged 
> beforehand - the alternative is that people are going to end up writing 
> the same hardware driver twice for different firmware implementations. I 
> don't think anyone benefits from introducing a platform that has 
> multiple device representations[1]

If you end up having to write two whole drivers that sounds enormously
depressing especially for those of us working on devices that aren't
architecture specific.  We've managed to avoid that thus far with device
tree and platform data, would it not be possible to mandate that people
use ACPI in a vaugley sane way which can support this too?
--
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/