linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] spi: Add HiSilicon v3xx SPI NOR flash controller driver

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:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:01:06 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <xuejiancheng@...ilicon.com>,
        <fengsheng5@...wei.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        wanghuiqiang <wanghuiqiang@...wei.com>, <liusimin4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] spi: Add HiSilicon v3xx SPI NOR flash controller
 driver

On 13/01/2020 11:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:09:27AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> On 10/01/2020 19:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
>>> PRP method is only for vendors to *test* the hardware in ACPI environment.
>>> The proper method is to allocate correct ACPI ID.
> 
>> Yes, that would seem the proper thing to do. So the SPI NOR driver is based
>> on micron m25p80 and compatible string is "jedec,spi-nor", so I don't know
>> who should or would do this registration.
> 

Hi Mark,

> The idiomatic approach appears to be for individual board vendors
> to allocate IDs, you do end up with multiple IDs from multiple
> vendors for the same thing.

So we see sort of approach a lot when vendors integrate 3rd party IP 
into a SoC and then assign some vendor specific ID for that.

But I am not sure how appropriate that same approach would be for some 
3rd party memory part which we're simply wiring up on our board. Maybe 
it is.

> 
>> BTW, Do any of these sensors you mention have any ACPI standardization?
> 
> In general there's not really much standardizaiton for devices,
> the bindings that do exist aren't really centrally documented and
> the Windows standard is just to have the basic device
> registration in the firmware and do all properties based on
> quirking based on DMI information.
> 

OK, so there is always DMI. I hoped to avoid this sort of thing in the 
linux driver :)

Cheers,
John