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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:09:35 -0500 From: Shanker R Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com> To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org> CC: <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, <nsaenz@...nel.org>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>, <kw@...ux.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI/ACPI: Add new quirk detection, enable bcm2711 On 8/10/21 9:47 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c >>> index 53cab975f612..7d77fc72c2a4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c >>> @@ -169,6 +169,9 @@ static struct mcfg_fixup mcfg_quirks[] = { >>> ALTRA_ECAM_QUIRK(1, 13), >>> ALTRA_ECAM_QUIRK(1, 14), >>> ALTRA_ECAM_QUIRK(1, 15), >>> + >>> + { "bcm2711", "", 0, 0, MCFG_BUS_ANY, &bcm2711_pcie_ops, >>> + DEFINE_RES_MEM(0xFD500000, 0xA000) }, >>> }; >>> >>> static char mcfg_oem_id[ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE]; >>> @@ -198,8 +201,19 @@ static void pci_mcfg_apply_quirks(struct acpi_pci_root *root, >>> u16 segment = root->segment; >>> struct resource *bus_range = &root->secondary; >>> struct mcfg_fixup *f; >>> + const char *soc; >>> int i; >>> >>> + /* >>> + * This could be a machine with a PCI/SMC conduit, >>> + * which means it doens't have MCFG. Get the machineid from >>> + * the namespace definition instead. >>> + */ >>> + if (!fwnode_property_read_string(acpi_fwnode_handle(root->device), >>> + "linux,pcie-quirk", &soc)) { >>> + memcpy(mcfg_oem_id, soc, ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE); >>> + } >>> + >> >> Is there any specific reason for not using the firmware agnostic API to get properties? >> >> >> if (!device_property_read_string(root->device, "linux,pcie-quirk", &soc)) { >> memcpy(mcfg_oem_id, soc, ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE); >> } >> >> > > IIRC it was because the "device" here isn't a struct device, rather a > struct acpi_device. I think this is the normal way in this situation > since we are directly picking up the fwnode rather than finding a > generic node and then backtracking to get the fwnode. Yes, you are right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists