| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170222140448.qo677wamcd44tgkw@rob-hp-laptop>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:04:48 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: "Khan, Imran" <kimran@...eaurora.org>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
agross@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v10, 2/2] Documentation/ABI: Add ABI information for QCOM
socinfo driver
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:17:15PM +0530, Khan, Imran wrote:
> The socinfo ABI document describes the information provided
> by socinfo driver and the corresponding attributes to access
> that information.
>
> Signed-off-by: Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> .../ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-qcom_socinfo | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-qcom_socinfo
Sorry to comment late on this (blame LWM), but I think creating this ABI
is a mistake. The biggest issue I have is this doesn't scale if every
SoC does its own thing. We should have a common interface so for example
userspace can retrieve the serial number from any SoC in the same way.
Yes, we can have custom attributes, but there should be common base.
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-qcom_socinfo b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-qcom_socinfo
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..cce611f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-qcom_socinfo
> @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/accessory_chip
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the id of the accessory chip.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/adsp_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/adsp_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/adsp_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the ADSP image.
Shouldn't this be part of the ADSP driver?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/apps_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/apps_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/apps_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the APPS(Linux kernel, rootfs) image.
Assuming that the kernel and rootfs are the same image and updated
together?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/boot_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/boot_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/boot_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the Boot(bootloader) image.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/build_id
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the unique id of current build being used on
> + the system.
Build of what? The kernel already has a build version.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/cnss_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/cnss_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/cnss_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the CNSS image.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/family
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the family(e.g Snapdragon) of the SoC.
Sounds like a standard attr.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/foundry_id
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the id of the foundry, where soc was
> + manufactured.
I don't see how userspace should care...
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/hw_platform
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the type of hardware platform
> + (e.g MTP, QRD etc) where SoC is being used.
What's a platform?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/machine
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the machine name as given in the DT.
This is already exposed.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/mpss_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/mpss_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/mpss_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the MPSS image.
Part of the MPSS driver?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/platform_subtype
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the sub-type of hardware platform
> + (SKUAA, SKUF etc.) where SoC is being used.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/platform_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file show the version of the hardware platform.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/pmic_die_revision
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows revision of PMIC die.
Part of the PMIC driver?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/pmic_model
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows name of PMIC model.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/qcom_odm
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the ODM using the SoC.
The vendor in the top-level compatible should provide this.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/raw_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows raw version of the SoC.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/revision
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows revision of the SoC.
Why do you need both?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/rpm_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/rpm_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/rpm_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the RPM image.
RPM driver?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/serial_number
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows serial number of the SoC.
Already have a standard property in DT.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/soc_id
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the unique numeric id of a Qualcomm SoC.
unique per chip or per SoC model?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/tz_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/tz_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/tz_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the TZ image.
TZ driver?
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/vendor
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + This file shows the vendor of the SoC.
Already in DT.
> +
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/video_image_crm
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/video_image_variant
> +What: /sys/devices/soc0/video_image_version
> +Date: January 2017
> +Contact: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
> +Description:
> + These files respectively show the crm version, variant and
> + version of the video image.
Video as in display or video codec? Should be part of the driver.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists