linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties support

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:	Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:43:01 +0200
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties
 support



On 10/15/14 17:17, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:46:39PM +0100, Darren Hart wrote:

>> Mark, what would you propose we do differently to enable this driver to
>> be firmware-type agnostic?
> 
> For this particular driver, all I'm asking for is that the
> "used-by-rtas" property is not moved over from of_find_property to
> device_get_property. It is irrelevant for all ACPI systems. Evidently my
> comment was unclear; I apologise for that.

So my objection here is that by keeping the of_* terms in the driver we
are required to include of, although it does safely convert to returning
NULL if !CONFIG_OF I suppose.

> We have status = "disabled" as a less specific mechanism for telling the
> OS to ignore a node in DT. I was under the impression that ACPI already
> had a mechanism for marking devices to be ignored, but perhaps I am
> mistaken.

That is correct, in ACPI this would be properly implemented with the
_STA reserved named method. In which case it wouldn't enumerate.

> 
> The concerns I mentioned at the end of my original reply were of a more
> general nature than this particular device description.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
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/