linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal/core: Make 'forced

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:   Sat, 12 Dec 2020 10:11:31 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...on.org.uk>
Cc:     rui.zhang@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amitk@...nel.org,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/core: Make 'forced_passive' as obsolete candidate

On 12/12/2020 04:50, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 08/12/2020 16:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The passive file in sysfs forces the usage of a passive trip point set
>>> by the userspace when a broken BIOS does not provide the mitigation
>>> temperature for such thermal zone. The hardware evolved a lot since
>>> 2008 as a good thermal management is no longer an option.
>>>
>>> Linux on the other side also provides now a way to load fixed ACPI
>>> table via the option ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE, so additionnal trip point
>>> could be added there.
>>>
>>> Set the option obsolete and plan to remove it, so the corresponding
>>> code can be removed from the core code and allow more cleanups the
>>> thermal framework deserves.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>
>> Is there any concern about this change ?
> 
> Yes - what's the reason to do so?

I'm cleaning up the thermal core code, so questioning every old ABI.

> The code isn't specific to ACPI,
> so being able to override ACPI tables doesn't seem to justify it.

I agree, the code is no specific to ACPI.

What non-ACPI architecture, without device tree or platform data would
need the 'passive' option today ?


-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog