From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED01C433EF for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:55:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1347769AbiA1Jz5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:55:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35312 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1347762AbiA1Jz5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:55:57 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7B8C06173B for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id r7so3926503wmq.5 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:55:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=9OcTQzGa35kRYA8wkuNpPKhajo2EEIRQ92GCwJmiBbs=; b=OKzgZ+Qew+4rwieXFFdzliUThMTozaLlZNrIZD9v1UtC/eCM7/HIzyc97uViD69IlC t7dcWSD7HDCp0rc5PduUFd0KOvlY/6SChiC4MrQrOIRYItrGh0AOD7p34Vybt+0wSzDv QFVyG3cqCqVDg2vy3ApKlga0BSpY0hkGO4vd10LcGy1e2X8y/xxwpMXZGhXqWIIh483H OKPnyOPtMRy0SwyMLy9NstU7w2JsHfZjsAp1KcmedjpqPCZmkakt1KhyiIyTTYhjPNt0 9+cIWHZRuCaOCcNie5P3vSpV+bJhReEwKtZlnq9m8dzDKWZv9HhJdQEjgFUkyG9Uw/u7 ayJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=9OcTQzGa35kRYA8wkuNpPKhajo2EEIRQ92GCwJmiBbs=; b=K8rwGc+TCE6UyqqNUUs2zTVZ7tYK1ORUD1VfG1UwYyjPOIVIfhbHdH5rmf+b6ArMXl lNR+29ognsoKnHcd1NNxRTzGoBv9MEXJ3rQkyNTSNFoN6JOLzugvYxxeA6iK2d5ORIIN hB5hkfX/wVNO3OESPpEqI2oA1qqPYG6l30mBVMxxBFiGa+4pQSylzwRKUblJQVsHrAIl anEU52wMCTo1iO2+3zGNg1+z0DIyfBIQdSZN1R+RXz/rwCrhF2rPHw33fFMfz+1YQyGW 9cuG1K84lLiYRoZ2/Pt9ibBWMFu7Qt9FCleQpibAn69tTro1kCgox+V4p1H7nTYN2TFb kThQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ujv3QVe4Qg+bhVDm0X/NYExyTy3EnnDyfq6z7y1qOOKMkF9Wa A3V2eJ3zpQHfEHbDrBNI9UhXNA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysznJTYs5X/q0fgqi/MbF+pd7Zm0F6oR4XCtNJ0BNgC1nwC/hhTAUF8qQs3EvmJ9WrWsrlww== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4fd2:: with SMTP id o18mr6688322wmq.152.1643363755476; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:55:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from myrica (cpc92880-cmbg19-2-0-cust679.5-4.cable.virginm.net. [82.27.106.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm4353423wrw.92.2022.01.28.01.55.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:55:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:55:32 +0000 From: Jean-Philippe Brucker To: Rajat Jain Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Bjorn Helgaas , Len Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PCI , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rajat Jain , Dmitry Torokhov , Jesse Barnes , Pavel Machek , Oliver O'Halloran , Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: ACPI: Allow internal devices to be marked as untrusted Message-ID: References: <20220120000409.2706549-1-rajatja@google.com> <20220121214117.GA1154852@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:26:07PM -0800, Rajat Jain wrote: > > > > And shouldn't this be an ACPI standard? > > > > > > Probably should or some supplemental doc but not sure how easy these > > > "properties" can be added there to be honest. > > AIUI, the principal comment I have received here is that this property > needs to be documented somewhere. I agree. > > Rafael, do you know if this new property can be added to the ACPI > spec, and if so, how to do so? I'm happy to initiate a process if > someone can point me to, I just hope that publishing a new property to > the ACPI does not have to block this patch. > > The other option I was thinking of was to use the same property name > (say "untrusted-device") for both ACPI and device tree platforms, and > document it in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci.txt along > with others. Since there are other properties there that seem to be > used similarly (Mika highlighted some below), perhaps that is an > acceptable solution? > > I had one last question on the property name itself. I was trying to > understand why a property might have 2 names i.e. "external-facing" > for DT and "ExternalFacingPort" in ACPI? I picked "external-facing" for DT to be consistent with other device tree property names. There doesn't seem to be any CamelCase in device trees [1], so we should probably keep that convention for new properties as well. The internal device_property could use the DT name and the ACPI name can be different. We do something similar with properties "pasid-num-bits" and "dma-can-stall" which are extracted from the IORT table in iort_named_component_init() Thanks, Jean [1] git grep "\<[A-Z][,a-zA-Z0-9]\+ =" -- '*.dts' > Are there any naming > convention requirements that require ACPI and DT property names to be > different? Is "untrusted-device" an acceptable ACPI property name? > > Thanks & Best Regards, > > Rajat