linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Make sure the USB role switch has PLD

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACeCKacOFLKGCBTuFTVj+=W9C+rC++7DfzkG=M23i0Qh4qTOxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:11:53 -0800
From: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Emilie Roberts <hadrosaur@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>, 
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, "Nyman, Mathias" <mathias.nyman@...el.com>, 
	"Regupathy, Rajaram" <rajaram.regupathy@...el.com>, 
	"Radjacoumar, Shyam Sundar" <ssradjacoumar@...gle.com>, Samuel Jacob <samjaco@...gle.com>, 
	Uday Bhat <uday.m.bhat@...el.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, 
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Make sure the USB
 role switch has PLD

Hi Heikki,

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 3:59 AM Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Emilie,
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 12:04:22PM +0100, Emilie Roberts wrote:
> > My understanding is that this is related to the wiring spec and not
> > ChromeOS specific. It seems possible that OEMs making non-ChromeOS devices
> > may have this same issue. Or are we certain that only Chromebooks will ever
> > see this?
>
> Non-ChromeOS platforms do not have this issue.
>
> The issue is with the ACPI tables - the USB role switch ACPI device
> nodes don't have the _PLD object on these systems. Ideally this could
> be fixed there by simply adding the _PLD to those ACPI device objects,
> but I understood that that is not an option.
>
> But maybe I misunderstood... Can the ACPI tables on these platforms
> still be updated?

Since it's just a _PLD update to, it should be possible to do a "light" firmware
update on the relevant boards. Shyam/Emilie/Won, how practical is this?

I'd much prefer this to be fixed properly in the ACPI table than relying
on this quirk.

IAC, if we absolutely *have* to use this quirk:
Acked-by: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>

Thanks,