linux-kernel - Re: [linux, dev-4.10, 6/6] drivers/hwmon: Add a driver for a generic PECI hwmon

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:   Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:53:46 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jdelvare@...e.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...id.au,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joel@....id.au,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [linux, dev-4.10, 6/6] drivers/hwmon: Add a driver for a generic
 PECI hwmon

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 03:14:37PM -0800, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
> On 1/11/2018 2:18 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>>>>+static const struct of_device_id peci_of_table[] = {
> >>>>>+	{ .compatible = "peci-hwmon", },
> >>>>
> >>>>This does not look like a reference to some piece of hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>This driver provides generic PECI hwmon function to which controller has
> >>>PECI HW such as Aspeed or Nuvoton BMC chip so it's not dependant on a
> >>>specific hardware. Should I remove this or any suggestion?
> >
> >PECI seems to be an Intel thing. So at least it should be
> >
> >  { .compatible = "intel,peci-hwmon", }
> >
> >assuming it is actually compatible with the Intel specification.
> >
> >	 Andrew
> >
> 
> Yes, PECI is an Intel thing but this driver is running on an ARM kernel on
> Aspeed or Nuvoton chipsets for now. This driver will be monitoring a host
> server's Intel CPU and DIMM which is running on a separated OS.

Hi Jae

You need to be careful with the name then. You should not claim the
name 'peci' in case somebody actually implements a PECI driver which
is compatible with Intel PECI.

However, looking at other comments, it seems like this part is going
away, if you turn your code into a bus driver.

      Andrew