lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 04/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Read IFS firmware image
    On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 09:12:37AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
    > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:45:40PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
    > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:02:13PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
    > > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/Makefile | 2 +-
    > > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/core.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
    > > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++
    > > > drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > You haven't commented on the source tree location. With the change
    > to use misc_register() this isn't a "platform" device anymore.
    >
    > Should I move to "drivers/misc/"? Or is there some better spot that
    > preseves the detail that this is an x86/intel driver in the path?

    There's misc_register() users all over the tree, no need for it to be in
    drivers/misc/ at all, especially if this really is a platform device as
    this one is. It's fine here.

    > > > +static struct ifs_device ifs_devices[] = {
    > > > + [IFS_SAF] = {
    > > > + .data = {
    > > > + .integrity_cap_bit = MSR_INTEGRITY_CAPS_PERIODIC_BIST_BIT,
    > > > + },
    > > > + .misc = {
    > > > + .name = "intel_ifs_0",
    > > > + .nodename = "intel_ifs/0",
    > > > + .minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
    > > > + },
    > > > + },
    > > > +};
    > > > +
    > > > +#define IFS_NUMTESTS ARRAY_SIZE(ifs_devices)
    > >
    > > Cute way to do this, but I don't see you ever have any more devices
    > > added to this list in this series. Did I miss them?
    >
    > That's in part 11/10 ... I have hardware, so I'm pretty sure that this
    > is a real thing. Just not ready to post until Intel announces the
    > details of the new test type.

    Let's not over-engineer for anything we can not review today please.

    > > If not, why all the overhead and complexity involved here for just a
    > > single misc device?
    >
    > It didn't seem like a lot of complexity here. It makes the changes to
    > this file to add an extra test trivial (just a new name in the "enum"
    > and a new initializer in ifs_devices[]).
    >
    > Obviously some more code in load.c and runtest.c to handle the new
    > test type.
    >
    > If it really is too much now, I can rip it out from this submission
    > and add it back when the second test is ready for public view.

    Please do, thanks.

    greg k-h

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-04-26 18:37    [W:3.080 / U:0.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site