linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_get_package

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: <bfa7770b-d323-1f2a-98c8-44c2142c9124@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:12:20 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC:     <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        <arnd@...db.de>, <olof@...om.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_get_package_info() API

On 30/01/2020 11:23, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> I personally would not prefer to add the support when I know it is getting
>> deprecated. I am not sure on kernel community policy on the same.
>>
> OK, the details on the proposal to deprecate can be now found in UEFI
> bugzilla [1]
> 

Wouldn't it be a better approach to propose deprecating the field when 
there is a readily available alternative, i.e. not a spec from a 
different body in beta stage?

To me, this new SMC support will take an appreciable amount of time to 
be implemented in FW by SiPs when actually released. And if it requires 
an ATF upgrade - which I guess it does - then that's a big job.

Thanks,
John

> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
> 
> [1]https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2492
> .