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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:40:53 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <>,
        Furquan Shaikh <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <>,
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Tony Lindgren <>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <>,
        Len Brown <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        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 07:21:35PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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 that the difference between ACPI and DT firmware models,
> in particular in relation to power states handling (and what piece
> of SW is in charge of power management) is significant and goes beyond
> naming conventions, therefore the code (and reasoning behind it - ie
> to have an identical driver interface to a completely different FW
> model) in this series is just not acceptable, that's a plain shortcut.

> We will see how this should be implemented in ACPI, not with this
> code (and FW bindings).

Oh, absolutely - what I'm saying is that once that's done I'd expect
implementing it to be almost entirely a regulator core change in the
same way that implementing DT support was.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists