linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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: <CAJZ5v0gDXSdAy9wJYUc_yyHD-Y_tPk0eVzWTyMLe7uHm30_Ncw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:14:35 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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>, 
	Armin Wolf <w_armin@....de>, Ilpo Jarvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Documentation: driver-api: Disapprove of using
 ACPI drivers

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 3:01 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue Jan 6, 2026 at 1:27 PM CET, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +This means that it really should never be necessary to bind a driver directly to
> > +an ACPI device node because there is a "proper" device object representing the
> > +corresponding piece of hardware that can be bound to by a "proper" driver using
> > +the given ACPI device node as the device's ACPI companion.  Thus, in principle,
> > +there is no reason to use ACPI drivers and if they all were replaced with other
> > +driver types (for example, platform drivers), some code could be dropped and
> > +some complexity would go away.
>
> I think it would be good to explicitly encourage people to convert existing
> drivers (maybe even list some of those) and rephrase the last sentence to list
> what exact infrastructure, complexity, etc. can go away once that happened.

I can rephrase the last sentence, but the purpose of this document is
to explain the motivation for the change rather than to make a call to
action.

> I think this would make it more likely to receive some contributions towards
> this goal.

I have prototype driver conversion patches for almost 50% of the cases
right now and I'm expecting to have them for all of the cases by the
end of the current development cycle, so I'm not sure how much there
is to gain.

I want people to not be surprised when they see those patches though.