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]

Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:08:36 +0200
From:	Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>
To:	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	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 Brijesh,

On 18/03/16 19:36, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> 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.
>

Did you made any progress on the DT part?

Regards,
Matthias