linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Apple mailbox fixup: switch to generic compatibles

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: <072f4547-297c-40c6-852c-49d94a14583e@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:43:45 +0100
From:   "Sven Peter" <sven@...npeter.dev>
To:     "Hector Martin" <marcan@...can.st>
Cc:     "Alyssa Rosenzweig" <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        "Mark Kettenis" <kettenis@...nbsd.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "Jassi Brar" <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Apple mailbox fixup: switch to generic compatibles



On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 04:55, Hector Martin wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 01.33, Sven Peter wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, at 06:50, Hector Martin wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Just a quick fix for the Apple mailbox compatible. Similar to [1], we
>>> intend to use SoC-specific compatibles only for potential quirks, and
>>> rely on a generic compatible to allow for forward-compatibility as long
>>> as things don't break.
>> 
>> I vaguely remember a brief discussion about this and I think we thought about
>> using "t6000-asc", "t8103-asc" in this case since this specific mailbox hardware
>> was only introduced in the M1. I think Apple calls this variant ascwrap-v4
>> and m3wrap-v2.
>> 
>> Doing it like you suggested is also fine with me though.
>
> I think I remember that one... seems this is ascwrap-v4 in t8101 too, so 
> not quite introduced with M1. But that one doesn't have m3wraps (or 
> doesn't use them).
>
> Since Apple do have some kind of sane versioning for these it seems, 
> maybe we should follow their numbers and call them apple,asc-mailbox-v4 
> and apple,m3-mailbox-v2?

Sure, sounds good to me.


Sven