linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] soc: qcom: add firmware name helper

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: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:20:36 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: neil.armstrong@...aro.org,  Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
  Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,  Loic Poulain
 <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,  Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
  Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,  Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
  Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
  linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,  wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org,
  linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,  linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
  devicetree@...r.kernel.org,  Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] soc: qcom: add firmware name helper

Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> writes:

> On Tue, 21 May 2024 at 12:52, <neil.armstrong@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/05/2024 11:45, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> > Qualcomm platforms have different sets of the firmware files, which
>> > differ from platform to platform (and from board to board, due to the
>> > embedded signatures). Rather than listing all the firmware files,
>> > including full paths, in the DT, provide a way to determine firmware
>> > path based on the root DT node compatible.
>>
>> Ok this looks quite over-engineered but necessary to handle the legacy,
>> but I really think we should add a way to look for a board-specific path
>> first and fallback to those SoC specific paths.
>
> Again, CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER => delays.

To me this also looks like very over-engineered, can you elaborate more
why this is needed? Concrete examples would help to understand better.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches