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:   Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:08:19 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <liusimin4@...wei.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>,
        <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
        Jiancheng Xue <xuejiancheng@...ilicon.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        wanghuiqiang <wanghuiqiang@...wei.com>, <fengsheng5@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] spi: Add HiSilicon v3xx SPI NOR flash controller
 driver

On 13/01/2020 14:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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)
> 

Hi Mark,

About this topic of ACPI having no method to describe device buswidth in 
the resource descriptor, it may be an idea for me to raise a Tianocore 
feature request @ https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/

There seems to be an avenue there for raising new features for the spec. 
I (or my org) can't participate in AWSG.

I would have no concrete proposal for spec update for now, though. 
Hopefully others with more expertise could contribute.

In the meantime, I have an RFC for using DMI to quirk support for this 
on the driver - I can share when ready.

Thanks,
John