linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] platform/surface: Add OF support

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: <CAHp75VdsksKPrj-CwmR4QLBrm_FfaG4aZys-_jnee_L=3ZnRPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 22:06:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, 
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <quic_kdybcio@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] platform/surface: Add OF support

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:40 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com> wrote:
> On 8/28/24 6:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:10 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com> wrote:

...

> > Yes, and software nodes for DT are quite strange things! Why can't you
> > simply fix the DT to begin with?
>
> For the ARM/DT variants we could do that. But we still have to deal with
> the x86/ACPI ones here.

So, then fix it there! Currently it's an abuse of software nodes
inside the Linux kernel.

> So for me it makes more sense to have it unified
> and just deal with everything in this module.

I understand the desire, but DT is DT and ACPI is ACPI, they are
different despite having some common APIs in the Linux kernel.
Moreover, DT has a validation tools and everything, making that being
a software nodes has at least these disadvantages:
- no official schema that must be supported and users are known of
- no validation done
- bloating of the Linux kernel binary and hence memory footprint

> Also, if we consider that at some point we might get ACPI PEP support (I
> know, far fetched right now): With that, ACPI on ARM might be feasible
> and then we'd have to manage the same thing in two places...

This (PEP) is something I have no knowledge about. But I think it's
still orthogonal to the software nodes usage.

> And lastly, the EC subdevices are quite contained and I don't see them
> interacting with any other components in the DT, so it's more of a
> stylistic choice where to put them.

They are still part of hardware and DT describes hardware.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko