[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BYAPR02MB5992099D8B87745DB7661C13B8200@BYAPR02MB5992.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:01:58 +0000
From: Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@...inx.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC: "ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"matt@...eblueprint.co.uk" <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"dmitry.torokhov@...il.com" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
Rajan Vaja <RAJANV@...inx.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/5] firmware: xilinx: Add xilinx specific sysfs interface
Hi Sudeep,
Thanks for the review.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 6:46 AM
> To: Jolly Shah <JOLLYS@...inx.com>
> Cc: ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org; mingo@...nel.org;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; matt@...eblueprint.co.uk;
> hkallweit1@...il.com; keescook@...omium.org;
> dmitry.torokhov@...il.com; Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>; Rajan Vaja
> <RAJANV@...inx.com>; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] firmware: xilinx: Add xilinx specific sysfs interface
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Jolly Shah wrote:
> > This patch series adds xilinx specific sysfs interface for below
> > purposes:
> > - Register access
> > - Set shutdown scope
> > - Set boot health status bit
>
> This series defeats the whole abstraction EEMI provides. By providing
> direct register accesses, you are allowing user-space to do whatever it
> wants. I had NACKed this idea before. Has anything changed ?
>
Firmware checks for allowed accesses only and rejects rest.
> If you need it for testing firmware, better put them in debugfs which is
> off on production builds.
Sure. Will reanalyze use cases and move to debugfs only if that suffices.
Thanks,
Jolly Shah
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists