linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: new Intel Atom SoC power management controller 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]

Message-ID: <1394152871.16156.32.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:41:11 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: new Intel Atom SoC power management controller
 driver

On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 08:26 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:

> my patch is word wrapped while I was not aware, hope this one work.

trivial notes:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pmc_atom.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pmc_atom.h
[]
> +#define	BIT_LPSS1_F0_DMA	(1 << 0)
> +#define	BIT_LPSS1_F1_PWM1	(1 << 1)

These could use BIT(foo)

#define	BIT_LPSS1_F0_DMA	BIT(0)
#define	BIT_LPSS1_F1_PWM1	BIT(1)

etc..

> +#define	BIT_SMB			(1 << 0)
> +#define	BIT_USH_SS_PHY		(1 << 1)
> +#define	BIT_OTG_SS_PHY		(1 << 2)
> +#define	BIT_DFX			(1 << 3)

here too.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/pmc_atom.c b/arch/x86/kernel/pmc_atom.c
[]
> @@ -0,0 +1,301 @@
> +/*
> + * Intel Atom SOC Power Management Controller Driver
[]
> + */

#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt

> +static void pmc_power_off(void)
> +{
[]
> +	printk(KERN_INFO, "PMC: Preparing to enter system sleep state S5\n");

	pr_info("Preparing to enter system sleep state S5\n");

> +		if (func_dis_index & dev_map[dev_index].bit_mask) {
> +			seq_printf(s, "Dev: %-32s\tState: %s [%s]\n",
> +				dev_map[dev_index].name, "Disabled",
> +				(d3_sts_index & dev_map[dev_index].bit_mask) ?
> +				"D3":"D0");
> +		} else {
> +			seq_printf(s, "Dev: %-32s\tState: %s [%s]\n",
> +				dev_map[dev_index].name, "Enabled ",
> +				(d3_sts_index & dev_map[dev_index].bit_mask) ?
> +				"D3":"D0");
> +		}

Maybe better with a single seq_printf

		seq_printf(s, "Dev: %-32s\tState: %s [%s]\n",
			   dev_map[dev_index].name,
			   dev_map[dev_index].bit_mask & func_dis_index ?
			   "Disabled" : " Enabled ",
			   dev_map[dev_index].bit_mask & d3_sts_index ?
			   "D3" : "D0");

> +static int pmc_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> +			  const struct pci_device_id *unused)
> +{

> +	pmc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct pmc_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!pmc) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "error: could not allocate memory\n");

Unnecessary OOM message, kzalloc will dump_stack()


--
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/