linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: pcc: rename platform interrupt bit macro name

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: <CAJZ5v0h82m37Li3YOfP7_8aAS3ULwzunpWZJwRPncLooPqvE-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 20:29:23 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, wanghuiqiang@...wei.com,
        zhangzekun11@...wei.com, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
        tanxiaofei@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, huangdaode@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: pcc: rename platform interrupt bit macro name

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:17 PM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2022/11/10 18:25, Sudeep Holla 写道:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:50:32AM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
> >> Currently, the name of platform interrupt bit macro, ACPI_PCCT_DOORBELL,
> >> is not very appropriate. The doorbell is generally considered as an action
> >> when send mailbox data. Actually, the macro value comes from Platform
> >> Interrupt in Platform Communications Channel Global Flags. If the bit is
> >> '1', it means that the platform is capable of generating an interrupt to
> >> indicate completion of a command.
> >>
> > This is touching ACPICA header file, so it must be submitted to ACPICA
> > separately following the guidelines in the github and imported into the
> > kernel.
> Got it, thanks.
> >
> > However, I don't see any point in this change. Yes the language "doorbell"
> > is not used in this particular context in the spec, but it is implicit from
> > other parts. I am not opposing the change though if Rafael is OK and ACPICA
> > project accepts it.
> @Rafael, what do you think?

Well, I wouldn't send a patch to make this change myself, but if you
really care about it, please submit an upstream ACPICA pull request in
the first place and we'll see.