lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/38] Annotate hardware config module parameters in arch/x86/mm/
    Date
    Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

    > > -module_param(mmio_address, ulong, 0);
    > > +module_param_hw(mmio_address, ulong, iomem, 0);
    > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(mmio_address, " Start address of the mapping of 16 kB "
    > > "(or 8 MB if read_far is non-zero).");
    >
    > The copied boilerplate above is really nonsensical here. The default
    > address is 0, so the init function will emit:
    >
    > pr_err("you have to use the module argument mmio_address.\n");
    > pr_err("DO NOT LOAD THIS MODULE UNLESS YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!\n");
    >
    > Pretty useless when you can't supply a valid address.
    >
    > if (kernel_locked_down()) {
    > pr_info("This is not allowed because ...");
    > return -EPERM;
    > }
    >
    > would make too much sense for the user, right?

    In some drivers, this would be wrong - ipmi, for example - and we've already
    been through this. The hwparam series of patches annotates *all*
    ioport/iomem/irq/dma specifiers unconditionally. The hwparam series is the
    way it is is because this has no overhead if it's not used - and also has the
    potentially useful side effect of making such parameters greppable.

    It may well make sense to add your above suggestion also - but in the other
    patch series.

    David

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-04-18 14:39    [W:4.099 / U:0.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site