linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: Documentation: driver-api: Disapprove of using ACPI drivers

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: <c430ba2f-5737-44c3-af6e-f79d15625f17@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 17:47:06 +0100
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
 Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>,
 Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
 Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
 Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Ilpo Jarvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: Documentation: driver-api: Disapprove of using
 ACPI drivers

Am 05.01.26 um 16:50 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 02:47:30PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 12:25:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Documenting this is fine, but really, just moving all of the existing
>> drivers to not use this and deleting the api entirely might be simplest.
>> Looks like the only "new" acpi drivers that show up are in the
>> platform/x86/ subsystem, so just tell the maintainers there not to take
>> any new ones?
> I believe that with or without documentation this will take a few cycles
> to get rid of (as there are more than just the PDx86 being involved as of
> today). Also there were (and might be in the future) a few attempts to convert
> in the opposite direction, i.e. from platform to ACPI driver. Doing something
> temporary for a few cycles is okay, no? From my point of view it helps avoiding
> the above mentioned cases.

I agree with that. Additionally, there might be out-of-tree ACPI drivers that
people might want to upstream, so having this piece of documentation might give
them a hint that ACPI drivers are going to disappear in the future.

Thanks,
Armin Wolf