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: <4f167ee7-ad50-d66c-8bd7-811fa0e83cfd@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 20:17:07 +0800
From:   "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC:     <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


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?
>