linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpio: Support interrupts in gpio-mlxbf2.c

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: <YFSl0Vrh04etK28J@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:23:29 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@...dia.com>
Cc:     "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        David Thompson <davthompson@...dia.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpio: Support interrupts in gpio-mlxbf2.c

> We cannot really pass it through the ACPI table because the ACPI
> table is common to all BlueField-2 boards.  And each board may have
> a different GPIO pin associated with a particular function. This is
> why we use ACPI properties instead of GpioInt(). So that the
> bootloader can change the GPIO pin value based on the board id
> detected at boot time.

That sounds very broken.

ACPI describes the hardware. If the hardware is different, you need
different ACPI. And i assume the ACPI spec says GpioInt() is the
correct way to do this, and does not say you can hack around
limitations of your bootloader using properties?

	    Andrew