| 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: <20130824045139.GA4840@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 05:51:39 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:45:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > "What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in > _CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block?" > > Does the situation occur today, ie does it ever happen that one interrupt > for a device is specified (if that is the correct term) in _CRS and > another by some other means ? The only case I can think of is PCI, where we ignored the ACPI-provided resources until fairly recently. That was a somewhat reasonable thing to do, since the hardware still had to support pre-ACPI operating systems and so the non-ACPI information sources were typically correct. Other than that, I think we always trust the ACPI data. -- 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