linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64/hyperv: Support DeviceTree

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: <587482fa-b747-42e8-b581-01132475211c@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 13:36:15 -0700
From: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, arnd@...db.de,
 bhelgaas@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, decui@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
 hpa@...or.com, kw@...ux.com, kys@...rosoft.com, lenb@...nel.org,
 lpieralisi@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, mhklinux@...look.com,
 rafael@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, wei.liu@...nel.org,
 will@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc: ssengar@...rosoft.com, sunilmut@...rosoft.com, vdso@...bites.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64/hyperv: Support DeviceTree



On 5/19/2024 11:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 19:33, Roman Kisel wrote:
>>>>    static bool hyperv_initialized;
>>>> @@ -27,6 +30,29 @@ int hv_get_hypervisor_version(union hv_hypervisor_version_info *info)
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>>    
>>>> +static bool hyperv_detect_fdt(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>>>> +	const unsigned long hyp_node = of_get_flat_dt_subnode_by_name(
>>>> +			of_get_flat_dt_root(), "hypervisor");
>>>
>>> Why do you add an ABI for node name? Although name looks OK, but is it
>>> really described in the spec that you depend on it? I really do not like
>>> name dependencies...
>>
>> Followed the existing DeviceTree's of naming and approaches in the
>> kernel to surprise less and "invent" even less. As for the spec, the
> 
> I am sorry, but there is no approved existing approach of adding ABI for
> node names. There are exceptions or specific cases, but that's not
> "invent less" approach. ABI is defined by compatible.
I should check on the compatible instead of adding a node that is not 
mentioned in the DeviceTree spec as I understand. Appreciate your help!

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Thank you,
Roman