linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] scpi: Add legacy SCP functions calling legacy_scpi_send

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:   Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:47:02 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, khilman@...libre.com,
        heiko@...ech.de, wxt@...k-chips.com, frank.wang@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] scpi: Add legacy SCP functions calling
 legacy_scpi_send_message



On 23/08/16 09:19, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 06:22 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/08/16 11:10, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> In order to support legacy SCP functions from kernel-wide driver, add legacy
>>> functions using the legacy command enums and calling legacy_scpi_send_message.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 118 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>> index 50b1297..bb9965f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>> @@ -578,6 +578,8 @@ scpi_clk_get_range(u16 clk_id, unsigned long *min, unsigned long *max)
>>>      return ret;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +/* scpi_clk_get_range not available for legacy */
>>> +
>>>  static unsigned long scpi_clk_get_val(u16 clk_id)
>>>  {
>>>      int ret;
>>> @@ -589,6 +591,18 @@ static unsigned long scpi_clk_get_val(u16 clk_id)
>>>      return ret ? ret : le32_to_cpu(clk.rate);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +static unsigned long legacy_scpi_clk_get_val(u16 clk_id)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +    struct clk_get_value clk;
>>> +    __le16 le_clk_id = cpu_to_le16(clk_id);
>>> +
>>> +    ret = legacy_scpi_send_message(LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_GET_CLOCK_VALUE,
>>> +                       &le_clk_id, sizeof(le_clk_id),
>>> +                       &clk, sizeof(clk));
>>> +    return ret ? ret : le32_to_cpu(clk.rate);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static int scpi_clk_set_val(u16 clk_id, unsigned long rate)
>>>  {
>>>      int stat;
>>> @@ -601,6 +615,19 @@ static int scpi_clk_set_val(u16 clk_id, unsigned long rate)
>>>                   &stat, sizeof(stat));
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +static int legacy_scpi_clk_set_val(u16 clk_id, unsigned long rate)
>>> +{
>>> +    int stat;
>>> +    struct legacy_clk_set_value clk = {
>>> +        .id = cpu_to_le16(clk_id),
>>> +        .rate = cpu_to_le32(rate)
>>> +    };
>>> +
>>> +    return legacy_scpi_send_message(LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SET_CLOCK_VALUE,
>>> +                    &clk, sizeof(clk),
>>> +                    &stat, sizeof(stat));
>>
>> Except this one which has a different structure format, why do we need
>> to define legacy versions of other functions ? Can't we play with
>> function pointer or have a boolean in drvinfo structure and use then in
>> the existing functions as I had shown in one of the earlier emails.
>>
>
> The main problem is that the command indexes deviates starting at
> SCPI_CMD_SET_CSS_PWR_STATE, I'll be pleased to know how to implement it.
>

Yes, I was thinking of some kind of mapping to new index using an array.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep