linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add IBM OCC bindings

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]

Date:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:43:33 +0300
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>, joel@....id.au
Cc:     linux@...ck-us.net, jdelvare@...e.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: hwmon: Add IBM OCC bindings

On 09/08/2022 22:42, Eddie James wrote:
>>> +  ibm,inactive-on-init:
>>> +    description: This property describes whether or not the OCC should
>>> +      be marked as active during device initialization. The alternative
>>> +      is for user space to mark the device active based on higher level
>>> +      communications between the BMC and the host processor.
>> I find the combination property name with this description confusing. It
>> sounds like init of OCC and somehow it should be inactive? I assume if
>> you initialize device, it is active. Or maybe the "init" is of something
>> else? What is more, non-negation is easier to understand, so rather
>> "ibm,active-on-boot" (or something like that).
> 
> 
> Well, the host processor initializes the OCC during it's boot, but this 
> document is describing a binding to be used by a service processor 
> talking to the OCC. So the OCC may be in any state. The init meant 
> driver init, but I will simply the description and change the property 
> to be more explicit: ibm,no-poll-on-init since that is what is actually 
> happening. Similar to the FSI binding for no-scan-on-init.

no-scan-on-init is not a good example. It wasn't even reviewed by Rob
(looking at commit). In both cases you describe driver behavior which is
not appropriate for bindings. Instead you should describe the hardware
characteristics/feature/bug/state which require skipping the initialization.


Best regards,
Krzysztof