Michal Kazior <[email protected]> writes: > On 14/06/13 14:34, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Michal Kazior <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> This can be useful for testing. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior <[email protected]> >> >> This is handy. >> >>> +static ssize_t ath10k_read_simulate_fw_crash(struct file *file, >>> + char __user *user_buf, >>> + size_t count, loff_t *ppos) >>> +{ >>> + const char buf[] = "To simulate firmware crash write anything to this" >>> + " file.\nThis will force firmware to report a crash" >>> + " to the host system.\n"; >>> + return simple_read_from_buffer(user_buf, count, ppos, buf, strlen(buf)); >>> +} >> >> But I'm not sure if just writing something to the file is a good idea. >> Should it have some sort of protection, for example that user needs to >> write a keyword or something? > > There are a few types of firmware failures that can be triggered. And > there's also a delay that can be specified. So in theory we could > accept parameters. > > I wanted to keep things simple though. I didn't need anything more > fancy than this to test firmware crashes/recovery.
Sorry, I wasn't clear above. I was just worried that a user might accidentally crash the firmware through this interface by writing to a wrong file. Not very likely scenario, but can happen anyway. Having some sort of extra check (like a keyword) would avoid that case. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
