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]

Date:	Sat, 04 Oct 2014 12:59:59 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	"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 Saturday 04 October 2014 02:13:23 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Because people get the format wrong regardless of documentation. The
> > format:
> > 
> > Package () {
> >       Package () { ^ref1, data, data },
> >       Package () { ^ref2, data },
> >       Package () { ^ref3, data, data, data },
> > }
> > 
> > Is superior to the format:
> > 
> > Package () { ^ref1, data, data, ^ref2, data, ^ref3, data, data, data }
> > 
> > Because in the former you have delimiters that can be used to verify
> > each tuple. Imagine someone misses a data element for one of these
> > tuples. In the former layout you can detect this easily while in the
> > latter you cannot.
> 
> I agree with this particular thing (although other people seem to have
> problems with too many package nesting levels) but I'm not sure what that
> has to do with the example given above (let me quote again):
> 
> > 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:
> > 
> >       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.
> 
> that I was commenting.  Both cases contains the
> 
>         Package () { ^ref1, data, data, ^ref2, data, ^ref3, data, data, data }
> 
> format that you don't like, don't they?
> 

There are two independent issues:

a) avoiding the need for "pwm-names" by embedding the name in the
   "pwms" property

b) avoiding the need for "#pwm-cells" by having explicit separators between
   entries in a "pwms" property.

It would be possible to do one but not the other.

	Arnd
--
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/