Re: [PATCH] enable RTAS /proc for PowerPC/CHRP platform

[Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2379 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 07:51 +0200, Nicolas DET wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>  >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas-proc.c    2006-10-14 
> 05:34:03.000000000 +0200
>  >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas-proc.c    2006-10-16 
> 10:46:16.000000000 +0200
>  >> @@ -253,43 +253,70 @@ static void get_location_code(struct seq
>  >>  static void check_location_string(struct seq_file *m, char *c);
>  >>  static void check_location(struct seq_file *m, char *c);
>  >>
>  >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
>  >> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc64"
>  >> +#else
>  >> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc"
>  >
>  > Please don't do any pathname changes.  Even if ppc64 isn't correct it's
>  > what applications expect and what we should provide for a coherent user
>  > interface.
> 
> Humm, ok.
> However, in this case 'ppc' (could be 32 or 64 as it is not specified) 
> is more generic than 'ppc64'.

But it's called '/proc/ppc64' right now on lots of machines, so you
can't go changing it.

>  > This should be the only change you need, and it should follow kernel
>  > coding style, aka:
>  >
>  >     if (!machine_is(pseries) && !machine_is(chrp))
>  >         return -ENODEV;
>  >
>  >>      rtas_node = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "rtas");
>  >>      if (rtas_node == NULL)
>  >>          return -ENODEV;
>  >
>  > And given this check I wonder why we need the platform check at all.  It
>  > should be safe to just remove it.
>  >
>  >
> 
> Indeed, however I can only test on CHRP. I'll remove the check in the 
> upcomming patch.

That should be fine AFAICT, you should probably just check that each of
the proc routines checks for errors - ie. just because you have an
"/rtas" node doesn't mean you necessarily have "/rtas/set-indicator" or
whatever.

> The patch also include a small code to create the /proc/ppc/rtas entry. 
> Should this be done here, or somewhere in arch/powerpc/chrp/setup.c ?

That code is almost entirely the same as proc_ppc64_create(), so I think
you should try and merge them - we want to minimise the number of
foo_ppc64() and foo_ppc32() routines we have.

cheers

-- 
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab

wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]