On 02/02/2016 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2016 5:37 AM, "Corey Minyard" <miny...@acm.org> 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, miny...@acm.org a écrit :
>>>> From: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com>
>>>>
>>>> This is so that an IPMI platform device can be created from a
>>>> DMI firmware entry.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com>
>>>> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de>
>>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Openipmi-developer mailing list
Openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
