linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 3/6] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Add a quirk to set PIO mode

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: <0ae18e57-ef79-4fd8-9e9a-4c57b480b267@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:17:22 +0300
From: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc: Guruvendra Punugupati <Guruvendra.Punugupati@....com>,
 Krishnamoorthi M <krishnamoorthi.m@....com>, linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 3/6] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Add a quirk to set PIO
 mode

Hi

On 8/9/24 6:44 PM, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>> I was thinking these quirks can be passed as driver_data more cleanly
>> and be specific only to affected HW if AMD HW would have an unique
>> ACPI ID for each HW version.
>>
>> Above X86_VENDOR_AMD might be too generic if and when quirks are fixed
>> in the future HW :-)
>>
>> So something like:
>>
>> static const struct acpi_device_id i3c_hci_acpi_match[] = {
>>      {"AMDI1234", HCI_QUIRK_PIO_MODE | HCI_QUIRK_OD_PP_TIMING |
>> HCI_QUIRK_RESP_BUF_THLD},
>>      {}
>> };
>>
>> and set them in the i3c_hci_probe() as:
>>
>> hci->quirks = (unsigned long)device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> 
> Nice idea. But only problem is that MSFT wants to have the same ACPI
> ID present in the specification.
> 
> I have replied to Andy on patch 1/6. Can you please put your remarks
> there?
> 
Well this is implementation detail later in the series and I found it 
better to focus ACPI ID discussion in 1/6.

> Yeah, agreed that having X86_VENDOR_AMD is too generic, but felt its
> good to have additional checks only after the HW is fixed, rather than
> being speculative now.. :-)
> 
> What would you advise?
> Most probably there will be future HW with either exactly same set of 
quirks, reduced quirks or new quirks and X86_VENDOR_AMD test will work 
only with the first case :-)