linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

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: <20181115113737.GW2500@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:37:37 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        Christian Kellner <ckellner@...hat.com>,
        Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI / ACPI: Identify external PCI devices

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon
> everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I
> wonder why there still exists an ACPI specification and related working
> group.
> 
> I personally (but that's Bjorn and Rafael choice) think that this is
> not a change that belongs in PCI core, ACPI bindings are ill-defined
> and device tree bindings are non-existing.

Any idea where should I put it then? These systems are already out there
and we need to support them one way or another.

> At the very least Microsoft should be asked to publish and discuss
> these bindings within the ACPI and UEFI forums.

These bindings are public, see here:

  https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/pci/dsd-for-pcie-root-ports

However, they are not part of the ACPI spec as you say.