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]

Message-ID: <fe6919a2-a1dc-f056-9480-3248dc9315dc@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:22:19 +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 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.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep