linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] serial: 8250: Add support for 8250/16550 as MFD function

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: <87lfz0m3ge.fsf@haabendal.dk>
Date:   Tue, 21 May 2019 13:50:25 +0200
From:   Esben Haabendal <esben@...bendal.dk>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vignesh R <vigneshr@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] serial: 8250: Add support for 8250/16550 as MFD function

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:11:08PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> I will try ad hold back with this thread until you get back to it.
>> >
>> > Ok, I have no idea what is going on here, sorry.  This is a really long
>> > and meandering thread, and I can't even find the original patches in my
>> > queue.
>> >
>> > So can you resend things and we can start over?  :)
>> 
>> Will do.
>> 
>> > But note, using a mfd for a uart seems VERY odd to me...
>> 
>> Ok.  In my case, I have a pcie card with an fpga which includes 5 uart
>> ports, 3 ethernet interfaces and a number of custom IP blocks.
>> I believe that an mfd driver for that pcie card in that case.
>
> I believe you need to fix that fpga to expose individual pci devices
> such that you can properly bind the individual devices to the expected
> drivers :)

Well, that is really out-of-scope of what I am doing here.

> Seriously, who makes such a broken fpga device that goes against the PCI
> spec that way?  Well, not so much as "goes against it", as "ignores all
> of the proper ideas of the past 20 years for working with PCI devices".

Might be.  But that is the firmware I have to work with here, and I
still hope we can find a good solution for implementing a driver without
having to maintain out-of-tree patches.

/Esben