linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] PCI: Define Intel PCI IDs and use them in drivers

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:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 17:57:56 +0200
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Amadeusz Sławiński 
        <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] PCI: Define Intel PCI IDs and use them in drivers



On 6/28/23 16:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:51:27PM +0200, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
>> PCI IDs for Intel HDA are duplicated across quite a few drivers, due to
>> various configurations and historical reasons. Currently almost all uses
>> of HDA PCI IDs have corresponding comment telling which platform it is.
>> Additionally there are some inconsistencies between drivers about which
>> ID corresponds to which device.
>>
>> Simplify things, by adding PCI IDs to global header and make use of them
>> in drivers. This allows for removal of comments by having IDs themselves
>> being self explanatory. Additionally it allows for removal of existing
>> inconsistencies by having one source of truth.
> 
> I'm in favour of this series. It allows to use PCI_DEVICE_DATA() in many places.
> With that said, I think you can also add some more definitions to PCI IDs header
> for the sake of being able to use that macro.

I don't have any objections on the change.

The big open is how we add new definitions without a 3-way deadlock
between PCI, sound and ASoC trees, and how those definitions can be
added to the -stable trees.

This isn't an hypothetical case, we have 2 pending submissions for
LunarLake [1] and ArrowLake [2] which will be provided as soon as the
merge window closes.

It's not clear to me if Bjorn is ok to let those audio-specific PCI IDs
go the audio trees, and how things would work between Mark and Takashi.

[1] https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/4425
[2] https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/4437