netdev - Re: [resend/standalone PATCH v4] Add auxiliary bus 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 15:47:56 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        Martin Habets <mhabets@...arflare.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fred Oh <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>, lee.jones@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [resend/standalone PATCH v4] Add auxiliary bus support

On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 10:36:27AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:42:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > You're missing the point there.  I2C is enumerated by firmware in
> > exactly the same way as the platform bus is, it's not discoverable from
> > the hardware (and similarly for a bunch of other buses).  If we were to

> No, I understand how I2C works and I think it is fine as is because
> the enumeration outcome is all standard. You always end up with a
> stable I2C device address (the name) and you always end up with the
> I2C programming API. So it doesn't matter how I2C gets enumerated, it
> is always an I2C device.

I don't follow this logic at all, sorry - whatever the platonic ideal of
what a platform device actually turns out to be when we get down to
using the hardware it's the same hardware which we interact with in the
same way no matter how we figured out that it was present.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)