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 16:34:03 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        chenxiang66@...ilicon.com, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jiancheng Xue <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 Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 02:27:54PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:17:32PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 4:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 01:01:06PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > > On 13/01/2020 11:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > > 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.
> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> > > It seems to be quite common for Intel reference designs to assign
> > > Intel IDs to non-Intel parts on the board (which is where I
> > > became aware of this practice).
> 
> > Basically vendor of component in question is responsible for ID, but
> > it seems they simple don't care.
> 
> AFAICT a lot of the time it seems to be that whoever is writing
> the software ends up assigning an ID, that may not be the silicon
> vendor.

...which is effectively abusing the ACPI ID allocation procedure.

(And yes, Intel itself did it in the past — see badly created ACPI IDs
 in the drivers)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko