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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 09:10:57 +0800
From:   "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
CC:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 2022/11/11 3:29, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> 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.
All right. Indeed, it doesn't matter. Ignore it.
> .