linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add RPMH helper functions

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: <a7b1b031-1009-4c5b-30ec-2db529ae6150@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jun 2018 22:41:18 +0530
From:   Raju P L S S S N <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add RPMH helper functions

Hi,

On 5/31/2018 3:19 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Raju P L S S S N
> <rplsssn@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
>> @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
>>   #define CMD_STATUS_ISSUED              BIT(8)
>>   #define CMD_STATUS_COMPL               BIT(16)
>>
>> +LIST_HEAD(rsc_drv_list);
> 
> I still see no point of rsc_drv_list.  Please remove it, AKA squash in
> <http://crosreview.com/1042883>.

Agree.


> 
> I'm also still of the opinion that we should take something like
> <http://crosreview.com/1054646>, AKA "Get rid of the global array
> rpmh_rsc".


>> +/**
>> + * __rpmh_write: send the RPMH request
>> + *
>> + * @dev: The device making the request
>> + * @state: Active/Sleep request type
>> + * @rpm_msg: The data that needs to be sent (cmds).
>> + */
>> +static int __rpmh_write(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
>> +                       struct rpmh_request *rpm_msg)
>> +{
>> +       struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = get_rpmh_ctrlr(dev);
>> +
>> +       if (IS_ERR(ctrlr))
>> +               return PTR_ERR(ctrlr);
>> +
>> +       rpm_msg->msg.state = state;
>> +
>> +       if (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE)
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +       WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
>> +
>> +       return rpmh_rsc_send_data(ctrlr->drv, &rpm_msg->msg);
>> +}
> 
> You went too far in the removal of EXPORT_SYMBOL I think.  This symbol
> needs to be exported because other code that could be compiled as a
> module might need to call into it.  To explain:
> 
> * If two files that are always built-in to Linux need to call into
> each other: no need for EXPORT_SYMBOL.
> 
> * If two files that are always part of the same module need to call
> into each other: no need for EXPORT_SYMBOL.
> 
> * If one file that might be built-into a module needs to call another
> that's builtin to the kernel: need EXPORT_SYMBOL.

Thanks for the explanation Doug. Will address this.

Thanks,
Raju