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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:49:49 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <>
To:     Mark Rutland <>
Cc:     Furquan Shaikh <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <>,
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Tony Lindgren <>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <>,
        Len Brown <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
        Hanjun Guo <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Sathyanarayana Nujella <>,
        Heikki Krogerus <>,
        Adam Thomson <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Alexandre Courbot <>,,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <>,
        Aaron Durbin <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Implement generic regulator constraints parsing for
 ACPI and OF

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:34:20PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > Mark, this was added in this cycle; can we please rip that out for now?

> > If it's instantiated directly we probably should.

> I think that given the larger problem that needs to be addressed here,
> and how the us of DSD properties muddies the water, it would be
> preferable to remove it until we have some consensus.

Can you send a patch with a writeup please?

> > I think there's a reasonable chance that any ACPI specs could be written
> > in such a way as to allow transparent support in Linux, the main thing
> > I'd worry about is naming issues.

> I think it's certainly possible to handle this so that drivers don't
> largely have to care. I also think there is some massaging the needs to
> be done (e.g. tables of names or some indirection for ACPI/DT
> differences), and a unified API that tries to completely hide that is
> not truly possible.

Given how little consumers can assume about what they'll be allowed/able
to do on a given system the naming should be about it - if anything else
leaks through I'd be a bit worried.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists