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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20120709130629.GA29130@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:06:29 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
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 Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:32:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> 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?

There's ongoing discussion about unifying ACPI and ftd representation, 
and once that's done this isn't a problem, but right now there's no 
terribly straightforward way to do this without a lot of basically 
boilerplate code. The biggest issue is that ACPI has a very different 
idea about event delivery and we'd need some way to abstract that.

-- 
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/