From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis Chamberlain Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] test_firmware: add support for firmware_request_platform Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:53:28 +0000 Message-ID: <20200113145328.GA11244@42.do-not-panic.com> References: <20200111145703.533809-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> <20200111145703.533809-6-hdegoede@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200111145703.533809-6-hdegoede@redhat.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hans de Goede Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H . Peter Anvin" , Jonathan Corbet , Dmitry Torokhov , Peter Jones , Dave Olsthoorn , x86@kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 03:56:58PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Add support for testing firmware_request_platform through a new > trigger_request_platform trigger. > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede > --- > Changes in v11: > - Drop a few empty lines which were accidentally introduced But you didn't address my other feedback. > --- a/lib/test_firmware.c > +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c > @@ -507,6 +508,61 @@ static ssize_t trigger_request_store(struct device *dev, > } > static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_EMBEDDED_FIRMWARE > +static ssize_t trigger_request_platform_store(struct device *dev, > + struct device_attribute *attr, > + const char *buf, size_t count) > +{ > + static const u8 test_data[] = { > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40, > + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80 > + }; > + struct efi_embedded_fw fw; > + int rc; > + char *name; > + > + name = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!name) > + return -ENOSPC; > + > + pr_info("inserting test platform fw '%s'\n", name); > + fw.name = name; > + fw.data = (void *)test_data; > + fw.length = sizeof(test_data); > + list_add(&fw.list, &efi_embedded_fw_list); > + > + pr_info("loading '%s'\n", name); > + I mentioned this in my last review, and it seems you forgot to address this. But now some more feedback: These two: > + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); > + release_firmware(test_firmware); You are doing this because this is a test, but a typical driver will do this after, and we don't loose anything in doing this after. Can you move the mutex lock and assign the pointer to a temporary used pointer for the call, *after* your call. But since your test is not using any interfaces to query information about the firmware, and you are just doing the test in C code right away, instead of say, using a trigger for later use in userspace, you can just do away with the mutex lock and make the call use its own pointer: rc = firmware_request_platform(&tmp_test_firmware, name, dev); if (rc) { ... } /* Your test branch code goes here */ I see no reason why you use the test_firmware pointer. > + test_firmware = NULL; > + rc = firmware_request_platform(&test_firmware, name, dev); > + if (rc) { > + pr_info("load of '%s' failed: %d\n", name, rc); > + goto out; > + } > + if (test_firmware->size != sizeof(test_data) || > + memcmp(test_firmware->data, test_data, sizeof(test_data)) != 0) { > + pr_info("firmware contents mismatch for '%s'\n", name); > + rc = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + pr_info("loaded: %zu\n", test_firmware->size); > + rc = count; > + > +out: > + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex); > + > + list_del(&fw.list); > + kfree(name); > + > + return rc; > +}