linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

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:	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:51:27 +0000
From:	G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"Kangkang.Shen@...wei.com" <Kangkang.Shen@...wei.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

On 6 January 2015 at 11:20, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:16:30PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 05 January 2015 13:13:02 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > > since passing no DT tables to OS but
>> > > acpi=force is missing is a corner case, we can do a follow up patch to
>> > > fix that, does it make sense?
>> >
>> > Not entirely. Why would no dtb and no acpi=force be a corner case? I
>> > thought this should be the default when only ACPI tables are passed, no
>> > need for an additional acpi=force argument.
>>
>> We don't really support the case of only ACPI tables for now. The expectation
>> is that you always have working DT support, at least for the next few years
>> as ACPI features are ramping up, and without acpi=force it should not try
>> to use ACPI at all.
>
> So if both DT and ACPI are present, just use DT unless acpi=force is
> passed. So far I think we agree but what I want to avoid is always
> mandating acpi=force even when the DT tables are missing (in the long
> run).
>
> Now, what's preventing a vendor firmware from providing only ACPI
> tables? Do we enforce it in some way (arm-acpi.txt, kernel warning etc.)
> that both DT and ACPI are supported, or at least that dts files are
> merged in the kernel first?
>
How do we tell the difference between a DT passed purely for booting purposes
ie a skeleton DT. And one which actually has hardware description as this needs
to be done before unpacking the DT.

Graeme
--
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/