linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 02/10] property: add fwnode_get_match

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: <CAHp75VfduXwRvxkNg=At5jaN-tcP3=utiukEDL35PEv_grK4Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:24:13 +0100
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/10] property: add fwnode_get_match_data()

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:47 AM Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com> wrote:
> Le Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:33:32 +0100,
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> a écrit :
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 9:24 AM Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com> wrote:
> > > Le Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:46:12 +0200,
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> a écrit :

...

> > > The idea is to allow device with a software_node description to match
> > > with the content of the of_match_table. Without this, we would need a
> > > new type of match table that would probably duplicates part of the
> > > of_match_table to be able to match software_node against a driver.
> > > I did not found an other way to do it without modifying drivers
> > > individually to support software_nodes.
> >
> > software nodes should not be used as a replacement of the real
> > firmware nodes. The idea behind is to fill the gaps in the cases when
> > firmware doesn't provide enough information to the OS. I think Heikki
> > can confirm or correct me.
>
> Yes, the documentation states that:
>
> NOTE! The primary hardware description should always come from either
> ACPI tables or DT. Describing an entire system with software nodes,
> though possible, is not acceptable! The software nodes should only
> complement the primary hardware description.
>
> > If you want to use the device on an ACPI based platform, you need to
> > describe it in ACPI as much as possible. The rest we may discuss.
>
> Agreed but the PCIe card might also be plugged in a system using a
> device-tree description (ARM for instance). I should I do that without
> duplicating the description both in DT and ACPI ?

Why is it (duplication) a problem?
Each platform has its own kind of description, so one needs to provide
it in the format the platform accepts.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko