From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, Dave Olsthoorn <dave@bewaar.me>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] test_firmware: add support for firmware_request_platform
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:22:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54f70265-265b-ad23-7d2d-af0b27ab1475@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200113145328.GA11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Hi,
On 13-01-2020 15:53, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 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 <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> 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.
I did address this in my reply to your review, as explained there,
the check + free on test_firmware before calling firmware_request_platform()
is necessary because test_firmware may be non NULL when entering
the function (continued below) ...
> 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.
I agree that using a private/local firmware pointer instead of
test_firmware and dropping the mutex calls is better. I will make
this change for v12 of this series.
I'll send out a v12 once the remarks from Andy Lutomirski's
have also been discussed.
Regards,
Hans
>
>> + 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;
>> +}
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-13 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-11 14:56 [PATCH v11 00/10] efi/firmware/platform-x86: Add EFI embedded fw support Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:56 ` [PATCH v11 01/10] efi: Export boot-services code and data as debugfs-blobs Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:56 ` [PATCH v11 02/10] efi: Add embedded peripheral firmware support Hans de Goede
2020-01-12 22:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-14 12:25 ` Hans de Goede
2020-01-14 12:37 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-01-17 20:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-21 11:10 ` Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:56 ` [PATCH v11 03/10] firmware: Rename FW_OPT_NOFALLBACK to FW_OPT_NOFALLBACK_SYSFS Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:56 ` [PATCH v11 04/10] firmware: Add new platform fallback mechanism and firmware_request_platform() Hans de Goede
2020-01-12 22:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-11 14:56 ` [PATCH v11 05/10] test_firmware: add support for firmware_request_platform Hans de Goede
2020-01-13 14:53 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-01-13 15:22 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-01-13 15:50 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-01-11 14:56 ` [PATCH v11 06/10] selftests: firmware: Add firmware_request_platform tests Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:57 ` [PATCH v11 07/10] Input: silead - Switch to firmware_request_platform for retreiving the fw Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:57 ` [PATCH v11 08/10] Input: icn8505 " Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:57 ` [PATCH v11 09/10] platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add EFI embedded firmware info support Hans de Goede
2020-01-11 14:57 ` [PATCH v11 10/10] platform/x86: touchscreen_dmi: Add info for the Chuwi Vi8 Plus tablet Hans de Goede
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=54f70265-265b-ad23-7d2d-af0b27ab1475@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=andy@infradead.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave@bewaar.me \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pjones@redhat.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).