linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Add ACPI support

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: <20200826144744.c4yzgoovk6f4t3id@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:47:44 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>,
        kuldip dwivedi <kuldip.dwivedi@...esoftware.com>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@....com>,
        Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@....com>,
        Tanveer Alam <tanveer.alam@...esoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-fsl-dspi: Add ACPI support

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:23:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:47:58PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
> > - The compatible string plays an integral part in the functionality of
> >   the spi-fsl-dspi driver. I want to see a solution for ACPI where the
> >   driver knows on which SoC it's running on. Otherwise it doesn't know
> >   what are the silicon parameters of the DSPI module (XSPI present or
> >   not, DMA present or not, FIFO depth). I don't see that now. I just see
> >   something hardcoded for:
> >   { "NXP0005", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&devtype_data[LS2085A], }
> 
> Based on some other stuff I've seen with ACPI on NXP stuff it looks like
> they're following the same scheme but only caring about that one SoC for
> the time being.

So, no argument about caring only about ACPI on one particular SoC for
the time being, but there's a big difference between a solution that
works for N=1 and one that works for N=2...

Showing my ignorance here, but is there something equivalent to
of_machine_is_compatible() for ACPI?

Thanks,
-Vladimir