linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 00/56] atmel_mxt

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: <2f7964da-0dca-2d13-3559-28b4582a3278@mentor.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:50:49 +0900
From:   "Wang, Jiada" <jiada_wang@...tor.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:     <nick@...anahar.org>, <jikos@...nel.org>,
        <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>, <bsz@...ihalf.com>,
        <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <erosca@...adit-jv.com>, <Andrew_Gabbasov@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/56] atmel_mxt_ts misc

Hello Dmitry

sorry for the delay,

On 2020/05/27 15:43, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Jiada,
> 
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:56:00PM -0700, Jiada Wang wrote:
>> This patch-set forward ports Nick Dyer's work in ndyer/linux github
>> repository as long as some other features and fixes
> 
> Sorry for ignoring the series for quite a while. I guess my biggest
> issue with the series is that quite a bit of patches are trying to
> handle the fallout from a very unfortunate design decision in the
> driver: the fact that it attempts to automatically upload firmware and
> config on every boot/probe. This design was done at my urging because I
> did not have access to the technical documentation and did not realize
> that the controller has non-volatile memory for both firmware and
> configuration. We should only attempt to automatically load firmware
> where device does not have non-volatile memory and is unable function
> otherwise, in all other cases we better leave it to userspace to decide
> whether to execute firmware update and when. The kernel should only
> provide facilities so that userspace can initiate firmware update. This
> design has worked well for Chrome OS for many years (it used Atmel
> controllers in several products), and I would like to bring it to the
> mainline.

I agree with you, I will review the patch-set,
and only pick these not related to firmware/cfg upload

Thanks,
jiada
> 
> Thanks.
>