linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 8/17] input: RMI4 F09 Built-In Self Test

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]

Message-ID: <50469AF9.7010508@synaptics.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:21:13 -0700
From:	Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	Allie Xiong <axiong@...aptics.com>,
	William Manson <wmanson@...aptics.com>,
	Peichen Chang <peichen.chang@...aptics.com>,
	Joerie de Gram <j.de.gram@...il.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@...ricsson.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/17] input: RMI4 F09 Built-In Self Test

On 08/27/2012 03:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
[snip]
>> >+static struct device_attribute attrs[] = {
>> >+       __ATTR(status, RMI_RW_ATTR,
>> >+                  rmi_f09_status_show, rmi_f09_status_store),
>> >+       __ATTR(limitRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_limit_register_count_show, rmi_store_error),
>> >+       __ATTR(hostTestEnable, RMI_RW_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_host_test_enable_show, rmi_f09_host_test_enable_store),
>> >+       __ATTR(internalLimits, RMI_RO_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_internal_limits_show, rmi_store_error),
>> >+       __ATTR(resultRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_result_register_count_show, rmi_store_error),
>> >+       __ATTR(overall_bist_result, RMI_RO_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_overall_bist_result_show, rmi_store_error),
>> >+       __ATTR(test_number_control, RMI_RW_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_test_number_control_show,
>> >+              rmi_f09_test_number_control_store),
>> >+       __ATTR(test_result1, RMI_RO_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_test_result1_show, rmi_store_error),
>> >+       __ATTR(test_result2, RMI_RO_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_test_result2_show, rmi_store_error),
>> >+       __ATTR(run_bist, RMI_RW_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_run_bist_show, rmi_f09_run_bist_store),
>> >+       __ATTR(f09_control_test1, RMI_RW_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_control_test1_show, rmi_f09_control_test1_store),
>> >+       __ATTR(f09_control_test2, RMI_RW_ATTR,
>> >+              rmi_f09_control_test2_show, rmi_f09_control_test2_store),
>> >+};
> If this is*only*  for tests, then for sure this should be in debugfs?

F09 is used in the final product (for example, a phone or tablet) both 
on the production line and to diagnose failures in returned products. 
We can't be certain that the phone/tablet/whatever manufacturer will 
include debugfs in their production kernel, and if they don't they 
almost certainly won't want to install a different kernel on the 
production line to run a test, so we provided a sysfs interface to this.

>
>> >+static int rmi_f09_alloc_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
> (...)
>> >+static void rmi_f09_free_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
> Why do you need separate functions for these two?
>
> If they are only used from one place (which I suspect) then just
> put the code at that site.

Some of the other modules have fairly large and complicated 
alloc_memory() and free_memory() implementations, so we adopted this as 
a general convention in all the RMI function implementations.  But as 
you suggested elsewhere, using devm_kzalloc could tidy things up a lot, 
in which case the functions could be merged back into their callers.

[snip]
--
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/