linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

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: <6318202.hl003vettj@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:20:52 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 04:40:36 PM Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:22:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > > It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should
> > > be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is
> > > not need to submit things to UEFI organisation.
> > > 
> > > What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT
> > > bindings in _DSD?
> > 
> > I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should
> > recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we
> > should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but
> > hopefully we can find an easy answer.
> > 
> 
> This discussion is just not going to happen until people at @redhat.com
> and people who have currently announced/released hardware are actually
> willing to start talking about it.
> 
> Id love to be able to put my foot down and ban the use of _DSD for
> servers but I suspect that will not happen.

I'll probably should stay away from this discussion, but I can't resist. :-)

Please imagine the situation in which the same IP block is included in an ARM64
SoC and in an x86 SoC that ships with ACPI tables and a _DSD for that device in
them.  What benefit would be there from disallowing systems based on the ARM64
SoC in question to ship the same _DSD in their ACPI tables?

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/