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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:50:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>, "Voss, Dr. Nikolaus" <Nikolaus.Dr.Voss@...wensteinmedical.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>, Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@...adcom.com>, Vikram Prakash <vikram.prakash@...adcom.com>, Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, nv@...n.de Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ACPI: bus: match of_device_id using acpi device On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Nikolaus Voss > <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> On 04/07/18 10:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Srinath Mannam >>>> <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com> wrote: > >>> +1 on NACK for this and anything else that abuse PRP0001 as a short cut >>> approach. >> This is no abuse but exactly what PRP0001 is meant for. The basic idea of >> PRP0001 is to reuse DT "compatible" strings in ACPI namespace, see >> Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt. Reusing also means getting access to the >> of_device_id. > > The idea was for almost DIY and / or manufacturer to develop a > prototype without modifying match code and faking ACPI IDs. > That's why the target of PRP0001 is almost sensors connected to I2C and SPI. > > That's why I agreed on your patch to help with this. But! The proper > solution for the devices (device manufacturer) is to allocate an ACPI > ID and provide a corresponding table to the driver. > > This is my understanding of that exercise. Rafael can correct me. This is not meant as a short cut for device manufacturers. The patch is meant to make PRP0001 work when access to specific driver_data is needed. I see nothing bad with it. >> Allocating an ACPI id for an already existing DT driver is redundant, isn't >> it? > > It is not. The driver won't work any better with it. The driver code gets another table as big as of_device_id table. Can you give me a hint what the added value is? Niko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists