linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/15] Platform: OLPC: Move EC-specific functionality out from x86

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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:36:38 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        quozl@...top.org, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] Platform: OLPC: Move EC-specific functionality out
 from x86

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:24 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk> wrote:
>
> It is actually plaform independent. Move it to the olpc-ec driver from
> the X86 OLPC platform, so that it could be used by the ARM based laptops
> too.

What is platform independent exactly?

>  #define OLPC_F_PRESENT         0x01
>  #define OLPC_F_DCON            0x02
> -#define OLPC_F_EC_WIDE_SCI     0x04

I think these lines grouped on purpose. Thus, I don't like this.
Either move either all or none.

> +int olpc_ec_mask_write(u16 bits)
> +{
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>
>  /*
> @@ -277,14 +369,17 @@ static int olpc_ec_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         ec_priv = ec;
>         platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ec);
>

> +       /* EC version 0x5f adds support for wide SCI mask */
> +       if (ec->version >= 0x5f) {
> +               __be16 ec_word = cpu_to_be16(bits);
> +

> +               return olpc_ec_cmd(EC_WRITE_EXT_SCI_MASK, (void *) &ec_word, 2,
> +                                  NULL, 0);

I would leave it on one line.

> +       } else {

> +               unsigned char ec_byte = bits & 0xff;

You may noticed that the parameter is of type u8, which clearly makes
& 0xff part redundant.

> +               return olpc_ec_cmd(EC_WRITE_SCI_MASK, &ec_byte, 1, NULL, 0);
> +       }
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(olpc_ec_mask_write);

I see that the above is inherited from older code, so, no need to
address those comments in here, but consider a follow up fix.


> +int olpc_ec_sci_query(u16 *sci_value)
> +{

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(olpc_ec_sci_query);

Similar comments are applied here.

> +
> -       err = ec_driver->probe ? ec_driver->probe(pdev) : 0;
> +       /* get the EC revision */
> +       err = olpc_ec_cmd(EC_FIRMWARE_REV, NULL, 0,
> +               (unsigned char *) &ec->version, 1);

Perhaps version should be defined as u8.

> +/* SCI source values */
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_EMPTY        0x00
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_GAME         0x01
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_BATTERY      0x02
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_BATSOC       0x04
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_BATERR       0x08
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_EBOOK        0x10    /* XO-1 only */
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_WLAN         0x20    /* XO-1 only */
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_ACPWR        0x40
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_BATCRIT      0x80
> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_GPWAKE       0x100   /* XO-1.5 only */

BIT() ?

> +#define EC_SCI_SRC_ALL          0x1FF

GENMASK()?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko