On Sunday, October 16, 2011 05:45:40 AM Vadim Bendebury wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 16, 2011 03:04:33 AM Vadim Bendebury wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, October 15, 2011 08:47:39 PM Vadim Bendebury wrote:
> >> >> Dear Marek Vasut,
> >> >>
> >> >> thank you for your comments, please see below:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, October 15, 2011 05:38:50 AM Vadim Bendebury wrote:
> >> >> >> TPM (Trusted Platform Module) is an integrated circuit and
> >> >> >> software platform that provides computer manufacturers with the
> >> >> >> core components of a subsystem used to assure authenticity,
> >> >> >> integrity and confidentiality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quick points:
> >> >> > * The license
> >> >>
> >> >> Please suggest the appropriate file header text.
> >> >
> >> > Uh ... you should know the license !!!
> >>
> >> removed the BSD part
> >
> > Are you sure you're not relicensing code you don't own ? I'm just
> > curious, what's the origin of the code ? I'd prefer to avoid legal crap.
>
> I am sure.
Would you mind answering my second question please ?
>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +struct lpc_tpm {
> >> >> >> + struct tpm_locality locality[TPM_TOTAL_LOCALITIES];
> >> >> >> +};
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you need such envelope ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I do - this accurately describes the structure of the chip.
> >> >
> >> > There's just one member ... it's weird?
> >>
> >> I think it is appropriate in this case to encapsulate the entire chip
> >> description in a structure. Among other things makes it easier to pass
> >> a pointer to the chip description around.
> >
> > can't you pass the locality array ?
>
> no, because it would not be clear how big the array is.
TPM_TOTAL_LOCALITIES big ?
>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> > Dot missing at the end.
> >> >>
> >> >> ok.
> >> >
> >> > Please fix globally.
> >>
> >> done
> >>
> >> >> >> +#define TPM_DRIVER_ERR (-1)
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> + /* 1 second is plenty for anything TPM does.*/
> >> >> >> +#define MAX_DELAY_US (1000 * 1000)
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +/* Retrieve burst count value out of the status register
> >> >> >> contents. */ +#define BURST_COUNT(status) ((u16)(((status) >>
> >> >> >> TIS_STS_BURST_COUNT_SHIFT) & \ +
> >> >> >> TIS_STS_BURST_COUNT_MASK))
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you need the cast ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it demonstrates the intentional truncation of the value, it
> >> >> gets assigned to u16 values down the road, prevents compiler warnings
> >> >> about assigning incompatible values in some cases.
> >> >
> >> > Make it an inline function then, this will do the typechecking for
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> I am not sure what is wrong with a short macro in this case - is this
> >> against the coding style?
> >
> > It doesn't do typechecking.
>
> but the code around it does, doesn't it?
>
> Sorry, as I said, I am new here: how does this work on this project -
> does the submitter have to agree to all reviewer's comments? Can I ask
> somebody else to confirm that using a macro in this case in
> inappropriate?
>
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +/*
> >> >> >> + * Structures defined below allow creating descriptions of TPM
> >> >> >> vendor/device + * ID information for run time discovery. The only
> >> >> >> device the system knows + * about at this time is Infineon slb9635
> >> >> >> + */
> >> >> >> +struct device_name {
> >> >> >> + u16 dev_id;
> >> >> >> + const char * const dev_name;
> >> >> >> +};
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +struct vendor_name {
> >> >> >> + u16 vendor_id;
> >> >> >> + const char *vendor_name;
> >> >> >> + const struct device_name *dev_names;
> >> >> >> +};
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +static const struct device_name infineon_devices[] = {
> >> >> >> + {0xb, "SLB9635 TT 1.2"},
> >> >> >> + {0}
> >> >> >> +};
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +static const struct vendor_name vendor_names[] = {
> >> >> >> + {0x15d1, "Infineon", infineon_devices},
> >> >> >> +};
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +/*
> >> >> >> + * Cached vendor/device ID pair to indicate that the device has
> >> >> >> been already + * discovered
> >> >> >> + */
> >> >> >> +static u32 vendor_dev_id;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +/* TPM access going through macros to make tracing easier. */
> >> >> >> +#define tpm_read(ptr) ({ \
> >> >> >> + u32 __ret; \
> >> >> >> + __ret = (sizeof(*ptr) == 1) ? readb(ptr) : readl(ptr); \
> >> >> >> + debug(PREFIX "Read reg 0x%x returns 0x%x\n", \
> >> >> >> + (u32)ptr - (u32)lpc_tpm_dev, __ret); \
> >> >> >> + __ret; })
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Make this inline function
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> +#define tpm_write(value, ptr) ({ \
> >> >> >> + u32 __v = value; \
> >> >> >> + debug(PREFIX "Write reg 0x%x with 0x%x\n", \
> >> >> >> + (u32)ptr - (u32)lpc_tpm_dev, __v); \
> >> >> >> + if (sizeof(*ptr) == 1) \
> >> >> >> + writeb(__v, ptr); \
> >> >> >> + else \
> >> >> >> + writel(__v, ptr); })
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >
> >> >> > DTTO
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you sure these will work as inline functions?
> >> >
> >> > Why not ? Also, why do you introduce the __v ?
> >>
> >> macro vs function: need to be able to tell the pointed object size at
> >> run time.
> >
> > This seems wrong like hell.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, but you should not be suggesting to
> change this code to inline functions, because it would break it.
Then write it so it won't break please.
>
> >> __v is needed to avoid side effects when invoking the macro.
> >
> > Side effects ? What side effects ?
>
> https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/PRE31-C.+Avoid
> +side-effects+in+arguments+to+unsafe+macros
I still don't see it. You use the variable in printf() and writeX(), neither of
which change the variable ... so where's the sideeffect ?
Cheers
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
