linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ACPI / PMIC: Add i2c address to intel_pmic

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: <3c9d4f9b-26c2-a135-eb2e-67963aa0bc0b@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:38:51 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ACPI / PMIC: Add i2c address to intel_pmic_bytcrc
 driver

Hi,

On 10/18/21 12:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:16 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 18:15, Tsuchiya Yuto wrote:
>>> On Microsoft Surface 3 (uses Intel's Atom Cherry Trail SoC), executing
> 
> ...
> 
>> As Andy said we could use a DMI quirk for this, but chances are that the Microsoft Surface
>> DSDT is not the only one with the wrong HRV value. So instead it might be better to
>> just test for the SoC type as the attached patch does.
>>
>> Tsuchiya, can you give the attached patch a try.
>>
>> Andy, what do you think, should we go with the attached patch or would you prefer using
>> a DMI quirk ?
> 
> TBH I have no strong opinion. Only one remark on your patch, I am not
> a fan of removing COMPILE_TEST but at the same time I'm not a fan of
> ifdeffery. All on all I think having COMPILE_TEST is preferable even
> if we have ifdeffery. Btw, IIRC similar code (i.e. BYT vs CHT by CPU
> ID) is being used elsewhere. Perhaps we might have some common
> (library) under arc/x86, PDx86 or so (headers?)?

We already have helpers for this defined in:

sound/soc/intel/common/soc-intel-quirks.h

We could move those to some header under include, maybe:

include/linux/platform_data/x86/atom.h

And add #ifdef-ery there so that things will also build on
non x86 ?

Then we could do a 2 patch series adding the
include/linux/platform_data/x86/atom.h
file + the drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_core.c
change and Lee can merge both through the MFD tree.

And then we can do further clean-ups of e.g. sound/soc
on top (we can ask Lee to provide an immutable branch).

How does that sound ?

Regards,

Hans