linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] eSPI: add Aspeed AST2500 eSPI driver to boot a host with PCH runs on eSPI

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: <004d3017-5477-ec42-c78a-aba0ca0621bc@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:28:22 +0800
From:   "Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] eSPI: add Aspeed AST2500 eSPI driver to boot a host
 with PCH runs on eSPI



On 2018-01-03 19:38, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:10:51AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Haiyue Wang
>> <haiyue.wang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> When PCH works under eSPI mode, the PMC (Power Management Controller) in
>>> PCH is waiting for SUS_ACK from BMC after it alerts SUS_WARN. It is in
>>> dead loop if no SUS_ACK assert. This is the basic requirement for the BMC
>>> works as eSPI slave.
>>>
>>> Also for the host power on / off actions, from BMC side, the following VW
>>> (Virtual Wire) messages are done in firmware:
>>> 1. SLAVE_BOOT_LOAD_DONE / SLAVE_BOOT_LOAD_STATUS
>>> 2. SUS_ACK
>>> 3. OOB_RESET_ACK
>>> 4. HOST_RESET_ACK
>> I have not looked at the driver contents yet, but I'm adding the SPI
>> maintainer and
>> mailing list to Cc here for further discussion. Can you clarify how
> More generally:
>
> As documented in SubmittingPatches please send patches to the
> maintainers for the code you would like to change.  The normal kernel
> workflow is that people apply patches from their inboxes, if they aren't
> copied they are likely to not see the patch at all and it is much more
> difficult to apply patches.
Should send to like this ? Because I add patch for Aspeed chip:

./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/misc/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> (maintainer:ARM/ASPEED MACHINE SUPPORT)
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> (supporter:CHAR and MISC DRIVERS)
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> (supporter:CHAR and MISC 
DRIVERS)
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)