linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info 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:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:46:12 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@...aro.org, David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 7:42:08 PM CEST Imran Khan wrote:
> On 10/26/2016 7:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> > As we are talking about generic soc_device_attribute fields, I was hoping that
> >> > having a vendor field would be helpful as along with family it would provide
> >> > a more thorough information. Also as more than one foundries may be used for 
> >> > a soc, can we have a field say foundry_id to provide this information.
> > My first feeling is that this 'vendor' information can should be
> > derived from the family. It's also not clear what would happen
> > to this when a company gets bought. E.g. the Oxnas product family
> > was subsequently owned by Oxford, PLX, Avago and Broadcom, and the
> > mxs family was Sigmatel, Freescale, now NXP and might soon be
> > Qualcomm. What would you put in there in this case?
> 
> Okay, not having vendor field is fine for me. Could you also suggest
> something about the foundry_id field.

This one seems more well-defined, so it's probably ok to add. What
would be the use case of reading this? Would you want to read it
just from user space or also from the kernel?

Maybe this can be combined with a manufacturing process, which probably
falls into a similar category, so we could have something like
"TSMC 28ULP" as a string in there.

	Arnd