linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ata: add AMD Seattle platform driver

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]

Message-ID: <56EC4AB8.7040901@amd.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:36:40 -0500
From:	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	<brijesh.singh@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<hdegoede@...hat.com>, <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme@...a.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ata: add AMD Seattle platform driver

Hi Tejun,

On 03/17/2016 12:36 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2016 14:07:13 Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Arnd.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:14:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> I am not debating on your AML call recommendation, it sounds like
>>>> a good idea however BIOS is already released hence its bit late to
>>>> add AML methods for this. I am seeking guidance on what can be
>>>> done in the given situation. I thought platform driver is one
>>>> option to get this feature enabled in kernel.
>>
>>> This is where we really need the ACPI maintainers to explain the
>>> general policy for dealing with firmware updates.
>>>
>>> I would assume that adding the feature in a later firmware version
>>> is a compatible change, and the feature is non-essential (the
>>> device will work fine with the generic SATA driver, except
>>> the LEDs don't blink), so it's not a big deal, it's just what
>>> you get for having the firmware shipped before the driver is
>>> reviewed (don't do that).
>>
>> So, if it were x86, I'd commit the custom driver without thinking too
>> much as ata drivers have always been working around bios issues (there
>> often wasn't any other recourse).  If the hardware is already out
>> there and it's not too easy to roll out bios updates, from libata
>> side, I'm okay with having a custom driver to work around that.  What
>> do you think?
> 
> 
> It's your call in the end. My main objection is to the fact that
> I have suggested a clean implementation for the normal DT based
> path that also fixes existing platforms that used to work in the
> past and were broken by the (long-ago) move from drivers/ide to
> drivers/ata, Brijesh has not implemented that but has instead
> continued pushing the hack for the ACPI mode that is still
> experimental on ARM64.
>

I am helping a customer who want EM support in a distro (using ACPI mode). Since its difficult to update
the bios hence can I request to pull this driver. The driver solves the ACPI usecases.

As per DT is concerned, will look into driver/ide and led framework but since I am not very familiar with 
driver/ide and led framework hence it will take sometime to design and implement the DT cases.

> 	Arnd
>