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  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]
Date:	Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:20:52 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:	Graeme Gregory <>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Graeme Gregory <>,
	Matthew Garrett <>,
	Hanjun Guo <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Mark Rutland <>,
	Olof Johansson <>,
	Grant Likely <>,
	Will Deacon <>,, Liviu Dudau <>,
	Lv Zheng <>, Rob Herring <>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
	Daniel Lezcano <>,
	Robert Moore <>,,,
	Robert Richter <>,
	Jason Cooper <>,
	Marc Zyngier <>,
	Jon Masters <>, Mark Brown <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>,,
	Randy Dunlap <>,, Sudeep Holla <>
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
> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists