linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/acpi: make ACPI boot preference configurable

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:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:10:11 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        astone@...hat.com, Jonathan Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/acpi: make ACPI boot preference configurable

On 2/28/2018 11:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 00:29 +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com
>>> wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2018 07:40 AM, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>>> For arm64 DT is suppose to *not* be the preferred method, yet still
>>> DT
>>> is preferred if the firmware provides both tables to the kernel.
>> However several arm64 products in embedded applications are still not
>> SBSA/SBBR compliant (and I have worked on a couple of such
>> implementations earlier) and still use bootloaders like u-boot (and
>> also closed-source implementations) which have no support for ACPI
>> currently and still rely on a DT to pass the system hardware
>> information to the kernel.
>> So far only open source implementation of a ACPI compliant firmware is
>> EDK2/UEFI which supports ACPI as the preferred boot method
> You mean for non-x86?
>
>>   and I am
>> not sure if all u-boot/in-house firmware implementations are planned
>> to be ported over to EDK2/UEFI for embedded applications.
> Why do you need that? ACPI (if you are talking about ACPI only, w/o EFI)
> is supported in U-Boot for few x86 SoCs/platforms. Moreover, one of them
> had never been shipped with ACPI/EFI complaint services in firmware and
> ACPI layer is purely done in U-Boot.
>
Right, let alone Chromebooks. :-)