From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758059AbcBCQvr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:51:47 -0500 Received: from vms173019pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.19]:35488 "EHLO vms173019pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758043AbcBCQvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:51:45 -0500 X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=WcjxEBVX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=bXmWQgKa9n63w7XTPFb8JQ==:117 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=jFJIQSaiL_oA:10 a=N54-gffFAAAA:8 a=fk1lIlRQAAAA:8 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=ylOdDSiZlK92dx24COsA:9 a=MDhb5_gEDJcl8BJT:21 a=yVoiPhbwSCq_LXWN:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Reply-to: minyard@acm.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dmi: Add a DMI firmware node and handling References: <1454107394-8914-1-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org> <1454107394-8914-3-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org> <1454318722.4754.17.camel@chaos.site> <56B0B101.9030701@acm.org> To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Jean Delvare , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Corey Minyard , OpenIPMI Developers From: Corey Minyard Message-id: <56B23004.4080608@acm.org> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:51:16 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/02/2016 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Feb 2, 2016 5:37 AM, "Corey Minyard" wrote: >> On 02/01/2016 03:25 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: >>> Hi Corey, >>> >>> I won't comment on the IPMI side of this as this isn't my area. However >>> I have a comment on the DMI part: >>> >>> Le Friday 29 January 2016 à 16:43 -0600, minyard@acm.org a écrit : >>>> From: Corey Minyard >>>> >>>> This is so that an IPMI platform device can be created from a >>>> DMI firmware entry. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard >>>> Cc: Jean Delvare >>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski >>>> --- >>>> drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >>>> include/linux/dmi.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/linux/fwnode.h | 1 + >>>> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c >>>> index da471b2..13d9bca 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c >>>> @@ -41,6 +41,16 @@ static struct dmi_memdev_info { >>>> } *dmi_memdev; >>>> static int dmi_memdev_nr; >>>> +static void *dmi_zalloc(unsigned len) >>>> +{ >>>> + void *ret = dmi_alloc(len); >>>> + >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + memset(ret, 0, len); >>>> + >>>> + return ret; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> static const char * __init dmi_string_nosave(const struct dmi_header *dm, u8 s) >>>> { >>>> const u8 *bp = ((u8 *) dm) + dm->length; >>>> @@ -242,6 +252,12 @@ static void __init dmi_save_type(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot, >>>> (...) >>>> @@ -250,15 +266,14 @@ static void __init dmi_save_one_device(int type, const char *name) >>>> if (dmi_find_device(type, name, NULL)) >>>> return; >>>> - dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev) + strlen(name) + 1); >>>> + dev = dmi_zalloc(sizeof(*dev) + strlen(name) + 1); >>>> if (!dev) >>>> return; >>>> dev->type = type; >>>> strcpy((char *)(dev + 1), name); >>>> dev->name = (char *)(dev + 1); >>>> - dev->device_data = NULL; >>> This change seems rather unrelated, and I'm not sure what purpose it >>> serves. On ia64 and arm64 it is clearly redundant as dmi_alloc calls >>> kzalloc directly. On x86_64, extend_brk is called instead (don't ask me >>> why, I have no clue) but looking at the code I see that it does >>> memset(ret, 0, size) as well so memory is also zeroed there. Which makes >>> dmi_alloc the same as dmi_zalloc on all 3 architectures. >>> >>> So please revert this change. This will make your patch easier to >>> review, too. >>> >> Ok. I had assumed extend_break wasn't zeroing since there were all the NULL assignments, >> I should have looked. >> >> I was thinking about this, and the fwnode could just be added to the IPMI device. I'm not >> sure if you would prefer that over adding it to dmi_device. The fwnode is in acpi_device, >> and I was modelling these changes after that, but maybe that's not required here. > I think dmi_device is right, especially if your patches result in a > firmware_node sysfs link being created. That way the link will point > to the right place. Yeah, that's the conclusion I had come to, I think. It doesn't currently add the firmware_node to sysfs, but that's easily added and probably a next logical step. I'll have a new set of patches out today after I compile test at each step. Thanks, -corey