linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Device bindings documentation updated ACPI-enabled platforms not currently supported

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: <b0ced156-fa38-8283-167f-872f6d3dd9c5@synopsys.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:50:08 +0100
From:   Ramiro Oliveira <Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
CC:     <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>, <Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Device bindings documentation updated ACPI-enabled
 platforms not currently supported

On 10/14/2016 6:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 05:52:50PM +0100, Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com wrote:
>> -		is_slave = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "isslave");
> Which tree is this based on? I cant see the existing isslave property in
> mainline HEAD (commit 29fbff8698fc0ac1).

I'm replying for Luís, since at the moment he's not able to reply.

This is a custom property since this I2C core doesn't support both master and
slave at the same time.

>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +		is_slave = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "is-slave");
>> +#endif
> This ifdef is broken. At least for arm64, a single kernel image can be
> booted with either ACPI or DT. We need separate accessors for DT and
> ACPI to handle these differently, or you need to explicitly check
> whether or not you have ACPI or DT at runtime.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll take a look at this

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

Thanks,
Ramiro