linux-kernel - Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-+iQtMqzrh+hahOSvcSyF2tP-=0VjRU6A42vNnXRYuTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:12:14 +0000
From:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"wangyijing@...wei.com" <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce
 early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI

On 30 January 2015 at 14:48, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, rather than a "I-created-an-empty-dtb" property, I would
>> actually say something like "dtb-contains-no-hardware-description".
>
>
> Why do we need a property for this?  Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
> description be the best way to see if the dtb contains no hardware
> description?  It's like putting a sign on an empty bookshelf that says,
> "there are no books here."
>

So what constitutes a 'hardware description'? A /cpu node? A memory node?
I don't think there is a mandated minimal set of nodes, even if
booting without cpu and memory nodes doesn't get you very far.

So those should go hand in hand: if we are going to implement logic
that decides a DTB is considered empty if it has no /cpu node, we
should update the boot protocol to mandate the presence of a /cpu node
for DT boot, and not change the rules every couple of months if
someone's use case requires it.

-- 
Ard.
--
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/