linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] gpiolib: add support for software nodes

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:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 23:02:46 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] gpiolib: add support for software nodes

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 08:12:32AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

...

> > Swnodes are controlled by the kernel and thus we can potentially allow
> > users tweak them from usersoace. There is a desire to allow easier
> > access to various driver's parameters - see for example Hans patches to
> > Goodix and Silead where he adds code that intercepts reading of device
> > properties and instead gets data form module parameter - I would like to
> > have such facility in more general way.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221025122930.421377-3-hdegoede@redhat.com/
> 
> How can you guarantee that flip-flopping priority of reading properties doesn't
> break things?
> 
> Moreover, what problem we are trying to hack up? The DT should be fixed in DT.
> ACPI? In ACPI properties are not that common, and even that, we shouldn't unleash
> vendors to make all possible abuse-like mistakes in ACPI, that's why I do not think
> that allowing property quirks is a good idea at all.

To clarify. In the context when we consider the reversed priority of their
importance. That said, that the "quirk first, firmware later" is NAK by me,
while "firmware first, quirk latter" is pretty much fine.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko