linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] rtc: pch-rtc: add Intel Series PCH built-in read-only RTC

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: <8f47c350219719cbd8706ebc079b064cfa43ce95.camel@yadro.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 02:52:55 +0300
From:   Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Milton Miller II <miltonm@...ibm.com>
CC:     Paul Fertser <fercerpav@...il.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] rtc: pch-rtc: add Intel Series PCH built-in
 read-only RTC

On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 14:56 +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 22:05 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 17/08/2021 18:04:09+0000, Milton Miller II wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Aug 16, 2021, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > > On 15/08/2021 01:42:15+0300, Paul Fertser wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 06:44:34PM +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote:
> > > > > > Add RTC driver with dt binding tree document. Also this driver
> > > > adds one sysfs
> > > > > > attribute for host power control which I think is odd for RTC
> > > > driver.
> > > > > > Need I cut it off and use I2C_SLAVE_FORCE? I2C_SLAVE_FORCE is not
> > > > good
> > > > > > way too from my point of view. Is there any better approach?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reading the C620 datasheet I see this interface also allows other
> > > > > commands (wake up, watchdog feeding, reboot etc.) and reading
> > > > statuses
> > > > > (e.g Intruder Detect, POWER_OK_BAD).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think if there's any plan to use anything other but RTC via this
> > > > > interface then the driver should be registered as an MFD.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This is not the current thinking, if everything is integrated, then
> > > > there is no issue registering a watchdog from the RTC driver. I'll
> > > > let
> > > > you check with Lee...
> > > 
> > > I think the current statement is "if they are truly disjoint 
> > > hardware controls" then an MFD might suffice, but if they require 
> > > software cordination the new auxillary bus seems to be desired.
> > > 
> > 
> > Honestly, the auxiliary bus doesn't provide anything that you can't do
> > by registering a device in multiple subsystem from a single driver.
> > (Lee Jones, Mark Brown and I did complain at the time that this was yet
> > another back channel for misuses).
> > 
> > > > > However, I'm not sure what is the correct interface for
> > > > poweroff/reboot
> > > > control.
> > > 
> > > While there is a gpio interface to a simple regulator switch,
> > > the project to date has been asserting direct or indirect 
> > > gpios etc to control the host.   If these are events to 
> > > trigger a change in state and not a direct state change
> > > that some controller trys to follow, maybe a message delivery 
> > > model?   (this is not to reboot or cycle the bmc).
> > > 
> > > milton
> > 
> 
> Alexandre, gentle reminder about this one series. I can get rid off from sysfs
> attribute and put it like RO rtc without any additional things for now as
> starter.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

ping

Thanks.