linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] thermal: intel Quark SoC X1000 DTS thermal driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:38:45 +0000
From:	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
To:	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	"edubezval@...il.com" <edubezval@...il.com>
CC:	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] thermal: intel Quark SoC X1000 DTS thermal driver

>Just to bring out for discussion, do you think we should put a "safety range"
>for reporting out the critical trip temperature value (mean the value from
>register minus 1 or 2 degree)?
>
>Just wondering if this is needed for the software to have the sufficient
>shutdown time before the HW make a hard power cut off when the
>critical trip point is reached.

I assume that the suggestion is meant for the case where thermal register is
not locked by BIOS. It is not a bad idea to have some protection against
wrong configuration on critical trip point by user.
Looking through the data-sheet in Quark, I could not find an recommended
temperature. So, I propose that we use the same value set by BIOS today
- 105C as the maximum. 

>> +static struct soc_sensor_entry *alloc_soc_dts(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct soc_sensor_entry *aux_entry;
>> +	int err;
>> +	u32 out;
>> +	int wr_mask;
>> +
>> +	aux_entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*aux_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
>
>Wondering is it possible to use the resource-managed functions (for e.g.
>devm_kzalloc())? This could help the driver looks more neat and clean
>where the resource-managed framework will help you take care all the
>kfree().
>
>Understand that the flow here is to call the thermal_zone_device_register()
>function after this aux_entry allocation.
>
>But thinking would it also working if change the flow to call
>thermal_zone_device_register() function 1st to obtain the
>thermal_zone_device
>then later on perform devm_kzalloc() and assign it back to devdata.
>
Ok, it is worth exploring on this devm_kzalloc() for neatness. 
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/