linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] ACPI: Document ACPI device specific properties

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: <20141003135826.GN26643@leverpostej>
Date:	Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:58:26 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] ACPI: Document ACPI device specific properties

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:03:51AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, October 02, 2014 04:36:54 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 02 October 2014 15:15:08 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 
> [cut]
> 
> > 
> > Putting everything to a single package results this:
> > 
> > 		Package () { "pwms", Package () {"led-red", ^PWM0, 0, 10, "led-green", ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
> > 
> > But I think the below looks better:
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > 		Package () { "pwms", Package () {^PWM0, 0, 10, ^PWM0, 1, 10 }}
> > 		Package () { "pwm-names", Package () {"led-red", "led-green"}}
> > 
> > and it is trivial to match with the corresponding DT fragment.
> > 
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > vs.
> > > 
> > > 	pwm-slave {
> > > 		pwms = <&pwm0 0 10>, <&pwm1 1 20>;
> > > 		pwm-names = "led-red", "led-green";
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't have strong feelings which way it should be. The current
> > implementation limits references so that you can have only integer
> > arguments, like {ref0, int, int, ref1, int} but if people think it is
> > better to allow strings there as well, it can be changed.
> > 
> > I would like to get comments from Darren and Rafael about this, though.
> 
> In my opinion there needs to be a "canonical" representation of the
> binding that people always can expect to work.  It seems reasonable to
> use the one exactly matching the DT representation for that.

I don't follow. The two forms would share the same high-level accessors,
but the binary representation is already different. Why should we choose
the inferior layout given they are already different binary formats?

Mark.
--
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/