linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] ACPI: device_sysfs: Add sysfs support for

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: <CAOvb9yjpruiHxkZyZ8BOT0Hi_iV7xMOnBCr59BZX3eah_Zcy_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:30:17 -0800
From:   Won Chung <wonchung@...gle.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] ACPI: device_sysfs: Add sysfs support for _PLD

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 3:30 AM Won Chung <wonchung@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > When ACPI table includes _PLD fields for a device, create a new
> > directory (pld) in sysfs to share _PLD fields.
>
> This version of the patch loos better to me, but I'm not sure if it
> goes into the right direction overall.
>
> > Currently without PLD information, when there are multiple of same
> > devices, it is hard to distinguish which device corresponds to which
> > physical device in which location. For example, when there are two Type
> > C connectors, it is hard to find out which connector corresponds to the
> > Type C port on the left panel versus the Type C port on the right panel.
>
> So I think that this is your primary use case and I'm wondering if
> this is the best way to address it.
>
> Namely, by exposing _PLD information under the ACPI device object,
> you'll make user space wanting to use that information depend on this
> interface, but the problem is not ACPI-specific (inevitably, it will
> appear on systems using DT, sooner or later) and making the user space
> interface related to it depend on ACPI doesn't look like a perfect
> choice.
>
> IOW, why don't you create a proper ABI for this in the Type C
> subsystem and expose the information needed by user space in a generic
> way that can be based on the _PLD information on systems with ACPI?

Hi Rafael,

Thank you for the review.

I was thinking that _PLD info is specific to ACPI since it is part of
the ACPI table. Could you explain a little bit more on why you think
exposing _PLD fields is not an ACPI-specific problem?

I gave an example of how _PLD fields can be used for specifying Type C
connectors, but it is not Type C specific. For Chrome OS, we plan to
initially add PLD to not only Type C connectors but also USB port
devices (including Type C and Type A). Also, PLD can be used in the
future for describing other types of ports too like HDMI. (Benson and
Prashant, please correct or add if I am wrong or missing some
information) Maybe my commit message was not detailed enough..

I am also curious what Heikki thinks about this. Heikki, can you take
a look and share your thoughts?

Thank you,
Won