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.
--Andy
