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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 22:15:01 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> Cc: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>, Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@...nel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] PCI/ACPI: Link host bridge to its ACPI fw node On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 8:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 10:15:54AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > A lookup of a host bridge's corresponding acpi device (struct > > acpi_device) is not possible, for example: > > > > adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&host_bridge->dev); > > > > This could be useful to find a host bridge's fwnode handle and to > > determine and call additional host bridge ACPI parameters and methods > > such as HID/CID or _UID. > > > > Make this work by linking the host bridge to its ACPI fw node. > > s/acpi device/ACPI device/ to match other "ACPI" usage > s/fw node/fwnode/ (if it should match "fwnode handle" above) > > I guess this patch makes ACPI_COMPANION() work where it didn't before, > right? E.g., the two ACPI_COMPANION() uses added by this series > (cxl_find_next_rch() and cxl_restricted_host_probe()). > > I'm not really clear on the strategy of when we should use acpi_device > vs acpi_handle, acpi_handle should be used for interactions with the ACPICA code, like when AML is evaluated, and acpi_device for pretty much everything else. > but does this mean there's code in places like > pci_root.c that should be reworked to take advantage of this? That > code evaluates _DSM and _OSC, but I think it currently uses > acpi_handle for that. That's fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists