Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Read IFS firmware image

Greg KH
2022-04-26T16:36:54Z

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 09:12:37AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:45:40PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:02:13PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/core.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
>
> You haven't commented on the source tree location. With the change
> to use misc_register() this isn't a "platform" device anymore.
>
> Should I move to "drivers/misc/"? Or is there some better spot that
> preseves the detail that this is an x86/intel driver in the path?

There's misc_register() users all over the tree, no need for it to be in
drivers/misc/ at all, especially if this really is a platform device as
this one is. It's fine here.

> > > +static struct ifs_device ifs_devices[] = {
> > > + [IFS_SAF] = {
> > > + .data = {
> > > + .integrity_cap_bit = MSR_INTEGRITY_CAPS_PERIODIC_BIST_BIT,
> > > + },
> > > + .misc = {
> > > + .name = "intel_ifs_0",
> > > + .nodename = "intel_ifs/0",
> > > + .minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
> > > + },
> > > + },
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +#define IFS_NUMTESTS ARRAY_SIZE(ifs_devices)
> >
> > Cute way to do this, but I don't see you ever have any more devices
> > added to this list in this series. Did I miss them?
>
> That's in part 11/10 ... I have hardware, so I'm pretty sure that this
> is a real thing. Just not ready to post until Intel announces the
> details of the new test type.

Let's not over-engineer for anything we can not review today please.

> > If not, why all the overhead and complexity involved here for just a
> > single misc device?
>
> It didn't seem like a lot of complexity here. It makes the changes to
> this file to add an extra test trivial (just a new name in the "enum"
> and a new initializer in ifs_devices[]).
>
> Obviously some more code in load.c and runtest.c to handle the new
> test type.
>
> If it really is too much now, I can rip it out from this submission
> and add it back when the second test is ready for public view.

Please do, thanks.

greg k-h