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:	Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:29:01 +0000
From:	Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
To:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
	"liudongdong (C)" <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
	"helgaas@...nel.org" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
	"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	"Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com" <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	"jchandra@...adcom.com" <jchandra@...adcom.com>,
	"tn@...ihalf.com" <tn@...ihalf.com>
CC:	"robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com" 
	<robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>,
	"mw@...ihalf.com" <mw@...ihalf.com>,
	"Liviu.Dudau@....com" <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	"ddaney@...iumnetworks.com" <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Wangyijing <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	"Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	"msalter@...hat.com" <msalter@...hat.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	"andrea.gallo@...aro.org" <andrea.gallo@...aro.org>,
	"dhdang@....com" <dhdang@....com>,
	"jeremy.linton@....com" <jeremy.linton@....com>,
	"cov@...eaurora.org" <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	"Chenxin (Charles)" <charles.chenxin@...wei.com>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space accessors
 against platfrom specific ECAM quirks

Hi Sinan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sinan Kaya [mailto:okaya@...eaurora.org]
> Sent: 13 June 2016 15:03
> To: Gabriele Paoloni; liudongdong (C); helgaas@...nel.org;
> arnd@...db.de; will.deacon@....com; catalin.marinas@....com;
> rafael@...nel.org; hanjun.guo@...aro.org; Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com;
> jchandra@...adcom.com; tn@...ihalf.com
> Cc: robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com; mw@...ihalf.com;
> Liviu.Dudau@....com; ddaney@...iumnetworks.com; Wangyijing;
> Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com; msalter@...hat.com; linux-
> pci@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linaro-
> acpi@...ts.linaro.org; jcm@...hat.com; andrea.gallo@...aro.org;
> dhdang@....com; jeremy.linton@....com; cov@...eaurora.org; Chenxin
> (Charles); Linuxarm
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI/PCI: Match PCI config space
> accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks
> 
> On 6/13/2016 9:54 AM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > As you can see here Liudongdong has replaced oem_revision with
> > oem_table_id.
> >
> > Now it seems that there are some platforms that have already shipped
> > using a matching based on the oem_revision (right Jon?)
> >
> > However I guess that if in FW they have defined oem_table_id properly
> > they should be able to use this mechanism without needing to a FW
> update.
> >
> > Can these vendors confirm this?
> >
> > Tomasz do you think this can work for Cavium Thunder?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Gab
> 
> Why not have all three of them?
> 
> The initial approach was OEM id and revision id.
> 
> Jeff Hugo indicated that addition (not removing any other fields) of
> table id
> would make more sense.

Mmm from last email of Jeff Hugo on "[RFC PATCH 1/3] pci, acpi: Match
PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks."

I quote:

 "Using the OEM revision 
 field does not seem to be appropriate since these are different 
 platforms and the revision field appears to be for the purpose of 
 tracking differences within a single platform.  Therefore, Cov is 
 proposing using the OEM table id as a mechanism to distinguish
 platform A (needs quirk applied) vs platform B (no quirks) from the
 same OEM."

So it looks to me that he pointed out that using the OEM revision field
is wrong...and this is why I have asked if replacing it with the table
id can work for other vendors....

Thanks

Gab


> 
> --
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
> Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ