linux-kernel - RE: 回覆: [PATCH] Add eSPI device driver (flash channel)

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: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 01:56:00 +0000
From: ChiaWei Wang <chiawei_wang@...eedtech.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC: Manojkiran Eda <manojkiran.eda@...il.com>, Rob Herring
	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Joel
 Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...econstruct.com.au>,
	Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger
	<richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	"jk@...econstruct.com.au" <jk@...econstruct.com.au>, Patrick Rudolph
	<patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>, Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	<linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, "openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	<openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "zev@...ilderbeest.net" <zev@...ilderbeest.net>
Subject:
 RE: 回覆: [PATCH] Add eSPI device driver (flash channel)

> 
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:34:31AM +0000, ChiaWei Wang wrote:
> > We appreciate that you are willing to help on the open source contribution.
> > However, please co-work with Aspeed before submitting drivers of Aspeed
> HW.
> > Otherwise, a misleading driver on the community are going to bring tons of
> customer issues to Aspeed.
> 
> It may not apply in this particular case as Aspeed did write the original driver
> and it is polite to work with previous authors when respinning a patchset, but in
> general there is no need to work with a hardware vendor before writing drivers
> for their hardware.
> 
> Blocking a driver because that company might receive more support requests
> is not the kernel's problem.

I agree with that and Aspeed will not refuse to support.

However, in this case, the authors, IBM, and Aspeed already have discussion (at least 4 times) before and foresee "issues" on practical eSPI SAFS use.
If there is already a known issue of the driver, why ignoring the previous discussion and push it?
A compromise is to ask for driver renaming to espi-mafs to avoid confusion.
Otherwise we need to explain, again, why the driver does not fulfill the SAFS expectation.

Regards,
Chiawei