linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/15] PCI/ACPI: Link host bridge to its ACPI fw node

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: <631a464c166cc_166f294d5@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 12:45:16 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
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>,
        "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

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 8:05 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > When is this explicitly needed. "Could be useful" is interesting, but it
> > needs to have a practical need.
> 
> It is needed and it is present on x86 AFAICS (see my last reply in this thread).
> 
> This seems to be addressing an ARM64-specific issue.
> 

Ah, ok, thanks for pointing that out.