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  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:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:50:19 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Cc:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	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>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties?
 support

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:43:01 +0200
> , Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
>  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> This shouldn't be that controversial. There will be things that only make
> sense for DT or only ACPI. Allowing the property to be processed when
> the other interface is being used may tempt firmware authors to use the
> property because it just happens to have a side effect that looks right
> to them.
> 
> I don't see any problem with factoring out those bits into a function
> that is only called (or built) when the associated firmware interface is
> used. In these situations, the driver isn't 100% generic, so having
> small per-firmware hooks is absolutely okay and not a burden to
> maintain.

Hrm... well, I suppose this isn't a hill I want to die on. I can disagree and
commit here :-)

-- 
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists