linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 1/6] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus

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, 28 Apr 2016 14:33:41 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	bp@...e.de, poeschel@...onage.de, treding@...dia.com,
	gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, andreas.noever@...il.com,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, daniel@...ll.ch,
	jkosina@...e.cz, sharon.dvir1@...l.huji.ac.il, joe@...ches.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, james.hogan@...tec.com,
	michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kheitke@...ience.com, mlocke@...eaurora.org, agross@...eaurora.org,
	sheetal.tigadoli@...il.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/6] SLIMbus: Device management on SLIMbus

On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:53:37 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 April 2016 17:58:04 Sagar Dharia wrote:
> 
> > > +int slim_add_device(struct slim_controller *ctrl, struct slim_device *sbdev)
> 
> > This looks like an artifact of ancient pre-DT times. I'd say kill it off before
> > someone starts using it.
> 
> Not every architecture uses DT, and even on architectures with DT
> support it isn't always the only firmware.  In this specific case it's
> questionable how many people are going to implement Slimbus at this
> point but in general insisting that we go DT only doesn't seem great.
> 

Nothing wrong with adding support for manual board files later if
we have a good reason for it, but at the moment, this seems completely
ARM/ARM64 specific.

I don't foresee mobile phones with ACPI using this subsystem, but even
if we got them, it would be a horrible idea to use hardcoded board
specific tables in a platform file, and we should insist that whatever
firmware is present has a way to describe the slimbus devices.

	Arnd