linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework

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:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:06:20 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:02:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:42:33PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:24:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
> > > > It also creates some problems to suppress the enumeration of the i2c
> > > > device via ACPI (which we'll have to do in a machine specific fashion,
> > > > because some laptops have this chip with properly configured ACPI and
> > >
> > > To be clear I think that's a terrible idea.
> >
> > If you're talking about the ACPI implementation on those machines,
> > nobody disagrees :-)
> >
> > To make sure I understand you correctly, do you advocate for suppressing
> > registration of the I2C devices from ACPI and instantiate them from
> > board code instead, or to somehow supplement the I2C device with
> > board-specific data ?
> 
> No, to repeat yet again that is what I think is a terrible idea.

Which of those two ? :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart