linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] gicv2m: Refactor to prepare for ACPI support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20151217165713.GA23549@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:57:14 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:	Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc:	marc.zyngier@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	hanjun.guo@...aro.org, tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org,
	graeme.gregory@...aro.org, dhdang@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] gicv2m: Refactor to prepare for ACPI support

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:23:49PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> Thanks for your review. Please see my comments below.
> 
> On 12/16/2015 4:12 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:55:29AM -0800, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>This patch replaces the struct device_node with struct fwnode_handle
> >>since this structure is common between DT and ACPI.
> >>
> >>It also refactors gicv2m_init_one() to prepare for ACPI support.
> >>The only functional change is removing the node name from pr_info.
> >>
> >>Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>
> >
> >>@@ -359,10 +355,10 @@ static int __init gicv2m_init_one(struct device_node *node,
> >>  	}
> >>
> >>  	list_add_tail(&v2m->entry, &v2m_nodes);
> >>-	pr_info("Node %s: range[%#lx:%#lx], SPI[%d:%d]\n", node->name,
> >>-		(unsigned long)v2m->res.start, (unsigned long)v2m->res.end,
> >>-		v2m->spi_start, (v2m->spi_start + v2m->nr_spis));
> >>
> >>+	pr_info("range[%#lx:%#lx], SPI[%d:%d]\n",
> >>+		(unsigned long)res->start, (unsigned long)res->end,
> >>+		v2m->spi_start, (v2m->spi_start + v2m->nr_spis));
> >
> >You didn't change this, but I don't think this message has enough
> >context.  It's pretty cryptic all by itself.  It'd be nice if it could
> >at least include a device name, e.g., if you could use dev_info().
> 
> Here is the example of the information printed:
> [    0.000000] GICv2m: range[0xe1180000:0xe1181000], SPI[64:320]
> 
> Basically, the v2m is just an extension of the GIC. Here, we are
> printing the memory range that it is covering, which can be used to
> identify different V2m frame and the associate interrupt range
> (SPI). The node name is not really providing any values. So, we are
> removing it.

I noticed the pr_fmt definition later; that adds some useful context I
didn't know about.  I guess there's no struct device for the GIC?  I
don't see one in struct device_node.  Seems like this piece of
hardware that apparently responds to a memory range *could* have a
struct device, but I'm a little fuzzy on how we handle ACPI and OF
device descriptions in that regard.

I hadn't noticed the memory range part; maybe you could use %pR there?

Just to double-check, there's no off-by-one error in the SPI range, is
there?  The pattern I usually expect is "start, start + nr_items - 1".

I'm just kibbitzing here; this isn't PCI code, and you don't need my
ack, so just consider these as random observations.

Bjorn
--
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/