linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] platform: allow ATOM PMC code to be optional

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: <84b5b002-9d5f-e87d-ef54-95a161a72718@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 May 2022 09:48:22 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] platform: allow ATOM PMC code to be optional

Hi,

On 5/2/22 18:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 04:30:57PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 4/28/22 20:11, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> As for users breaking support for BYT/CHT setups because they forget
>> to enable this, without X86_INTEL_LPSS being enabled BYT/CHT are pretty
>> much broken anyways and since patch 2/4 adds a "select PMC_ATOM" to the
>> X86_INTEL_LPSS Kconfig option I'm not really worried about that.
>>
>> I'm afraid this patch-set might break some randomconfig builds though,
>> but I cannot see anything obviously causing such breakage here, so
>> I think it would be fine to just merge this series as is and then
>> see if we get any breakage reports.
>>
>> Andy, are you ok with me moving ahead and merging this series as is?
> 
> It seems as is can't be fulfilled due to your own comment, but in general I'm
> not objecting the idea. So, go ahead if you feel it's ready.

Right, my later comment to just replace PMC_ATOM with X86_INTEL_LPSS
supersedes this.

I'll send out a patch with that approach so that this can get some
comments / review.

Regards,

Hans