linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI: bus.c: Let acpi_device_get_match

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 01:49:18 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi83@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Xiongfeng Wang <xiongfeng.wang@...aro.org>, nv@...n.de,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: bus.c: Let acpi_device_get_match_data() return DT
 compatibility data

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Nikolaus Voss
<nikolaus.voss@...wensteinmedical.de> wrote:

Thanks for the patch, now I completely got it and agree on approach.
Few comments below.

> When using ACPI with ACPI_DT_NAMESPACE_HID/ PRP0001 HID and referring to
> of_device_id table "compatible" strings in DSD, a pointer to the

_DSD

> corresponding DT table entry should be returned instead of a null
> pointer. An acpi_device_id match still takes precedence.

>  const void *acpi_device_get_match_data(const struct device *dev)
>  {
> -       const struct acpi_device_id *match;
> +       const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id = NULL;
> +       const struct of_device_id *of_id = NULL;
> +       const struct device_driver *drv = dev->driver;
>
> -       match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> -       if (!match)

> +       __acpi_match_device(acpi_companion_match(dev), drv->acpi_match_table,
> +                           drv->of_match_table, &acpi_id, &of_id);

Perhaps,

bool match;

match = __acpi_match_device(..);
if (!match)
 return NULL;

...
> +       if (acpi_id)
> +               return (const void*)acpi_id->driver_data;
> +       else if (of_id)
> +               return (const void*)of_id->data;

Actually (dbesides redundant 'else') there is no difference in which
order you test these.
Thus, perhaps

if (of_id)
 return ...of_id...;

return ...acpi_id...;

> -       return (const void *)match->driver_data;
>  }


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko