All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
To: "Erwan Velu" <erwanaliasr1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>,
	"Erwan Velu" <e.velu@criteo.com>,
	"Changbin Du" <changbin.du@intel.com>,
	"Boris Brezillon" <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
	"Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	"Jens Wiklander" <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
	"Sumit Garg" <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	"Michal Marek" <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	"Mattias Jacobsson" <2pi@mok.nu>,
	"Masahiro Yamada" <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	<linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] firmware/dmi_scan: Add dmi_save_release to save releases fields
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:32:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191021163208.5cd03d59@endymion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190918094323.17515-1-e.velu@criteo.com>

Hi Erwan,

Sorry for the late answer.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:43:19 +0200, Erwan Velu wrote:
> In DMI type 0, there is several fields that encodes a release.

is -> are
encodes -> encode

> The dmi_save_release() function have the logic to check if the field is valid.
> If so, it reports the actual value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Erwan Velu <e.velu@criteo.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)

This patch introduces a warning:

drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c:185:20: warning: ‘dmi_save_release’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
 static void __init dmi_save_release(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

because you add a static function with no user. I understand that you
add a use later in the series, but it's not OK to introduce a warning
even if temporary. It also makes little sense to split the changes that
way as there is no way to cherry-pick one of the patches without the
rest. And it makes things more difficult to review too, as I can't
possibly judge if this function if right without also seeing where is
will be called and how.

So, please merge all the changes into a single patch.

> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> index 35ed56b9c34f..202bd2c69d0f 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,32 @@ static void __init dmi_save_ident(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
>  	dmi_ident[slot] = p;
>  }
>  
> +static void __init dmi_save_release(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
> +		int index)
> +{
> +	const u8 *d;
> +	char *s;
> +
> +	// If the table doesn't have the field, let's return

Please stick to C89-style comments (/* */) as used everywhere else in
this file.

> +	if (dmi_ident[slot] || dm->length < index)
> +		return;
> +
> +	d = (u8 *) dm + index;
> +
> +	// As per the specification,
> +	// if the system doesn't have the field, the value is FF
> +	if (d[0] == 0xFF)
> +		return;

That's not exactly what the specification says. It says:

"If the system does not support the use of [the System BIOS Major
Release] field, the value is 0FFh for both this field and the System
BIOS Minor Release field." So unused is when both fields are 0xFF. You
can't test them independently.

Same goes for the Embedded Controller Firmware Release fields, even if
it is worded differently, the logic is the same.

> +
> +	s = dmi_alloc(4);
> +	if (!s)
> +		return;
> +
> +	sprintf(s, "%u", d[0]);
> +
> +	dmi_ident[slot] = s;
> +}
> +
>  static void __init dmi_save_uuid(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
>  		int index)
>  {


-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
To: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>,
	Erwan Velu <e.velu@criteo.com>,
	Changbin Du <changbin.du@intel.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@mok.nu>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] firmware/dmi_scan: Add dmi_save_release to save releases fields
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:32:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191021163208.5cd03d59@endymion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190918094323.17515-1-e.velu@criteo.com>

Hi Erwan,

Sorry for the late answer.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:43:19 +0200, Erwan Velu wrote:
> In DMI type 0, there is several fields that encodes a release.

is -> are
encodes -> encode

> The dmi_save_release() function have the logic to check if the field is valid.
> If so, it reports the actual value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Erwan Velu <e.velu@criteo.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)

This patch introduces a warning:

drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c:185:20: warning: ‘dmi_save_release’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
 static void __init dmi_save_release(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

because you add a static function with no user. I understand that you
add a use later in the series, but it's not OK to introduce a warning
even if temporary. It also makes little sense to split the changes that
way as there is no way to cherry-pick one of the patches without the
rest. And it makes things more difficult to review too, as I can't
possibly judge if this function if right without also seeing where is
will be called and how.

So, please merge all the changes into a single patch.

> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> index 35ed56b9c34f..202bd2c69d0f 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,32 @@ static void __init dmi_save_ident(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
>  	dmi_ident[slot] = p;
>  }
>  
> +static void __init dmi_save_release(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
> +		int index)
> +{
> +	const u8 *d;
> +	char *s;
> +
> +	// If the table doesn't have the field, let's return

Please stick to C89-style comments (/* */) as used everywhere else in
this file.

> +	if (dmi_ident[slot] || dm->length < index)
> +		return;
> +
> +	d = (u8 *) dm + index;
> +
> +	// As per the specification,
> +	// if the system doesn't have the field, the value is FF
> +	if (d[0] == 0xFF)
> +		return;

That's not exactly what the specification says. It says:

"If the system does not support the use of [the System BIOS Major
Release] field, the value is 0FFh for both this field and the System
BIOS Minor Release field." So unused is when both fields are 0xFF. You
can't test them independently.

Same goes for the Embedded Controller Firmware Release fields, even if
it is worded differently, the logic is the same.

> +
> +	s = dmi_alloc(4);
> +	if (!s)
> +		return;
> +
> +	sprintf(s, "%u", d[0]);
> +
> +	dmi_ident[slot] = s;
> +}
> +
>  static void __init dmi_save_uuid(const struct dmi_header *dm, int slot,
>  		int index)
>  {


-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-21 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-18  9:43 [PATCH 1/3] firmware/dmi_scan: Add dmi_save_release to save releases fields Erwan Velu
2019-09-18  9:43 ` Erwan Velu
2019-09-18  9:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] firmware/dmi: Report DMI Bios release Erwan Velu
2019-09-18  9:43   ` Erwan Velu
2019-10-21 14:53   ` Jean Delvare
2019-10-21 14:53     ` Jean Delvare
2019-11-27 15:05     ` Erwan Velu
2019-09-18  9:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] firmware/dmi: Report DMI Embedded Firmware release Erwan Velu
2019-09-18  9:43   ` Erwan Velu
2019-10-21 14:55   ` Jean Delvare
2019-10-21 14:55     ` Jean Delvare
2019-10-21 14:32 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2019-10-21 14:32   ` [PATCH 1/3] firmware/dmi_scan: Add dmi_save_release to save releases fields Jean Delvare
2019-11-27 15:04   ` Erwan Velu
2019-11-27 15:07 ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware/dmi: Report DMI Bios release Erwan Velu
2019-11-27 15:07   ` Erwan Velu
2019-11-27 15:07   ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware/dmi: Report DMI Embedded Firmware release Erwan Velu
2019-11-27 15:07     ` Erwan Velu
2020-02-06 12:24     ` Jean Delvare
2020-02-06 12:25       ` Erwan Velu
2020-02-07  8:38       ` Erwan Velu
2020-02-06 12:16   ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware/dmi: Report DMI Bios release Jean Delvare

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191021163208.5cd03d59@endymion \
    --to=jdelvare@suse.de \
    --cc=2pi@mok.nu \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bbrezillon@kernel.org \
    --cc=changbin.du@intel.com \
    --cc=e.velu@criteo.com \
    --cc=erwanaliasr1@gmail.com \
    --cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
    --cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
    --cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.