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  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:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:23:12 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        James Cameron <quozl@...top.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/15] Platform: OLPC: Move EC-specific functionality
 out from x86

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:59 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk> wrote:
>
> Move the olpc-ec driver away from the X86 OLPC platform so that it could be
> used by the ARM based laptops too. Notably, the driver for the OLPC battery,
> which is also used on the ARM models, builds on this driver's interface.
>
> It is actually plaform independent: the OLPC EC commands with their argument
> and responses are mostly the same despite the delivery mechanism is
> different.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>

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

Still same concern, i.e. if the initially added definitions are
coupled together by some reason, why we split them?
As I told either move all, or none or put in commit message how
decoupling would benefit.

> +       /* 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);

No space is needed in "(void *)&ec_word".

> +       } else {

> +               unsigned char ec_byte = bits & 0xff;

Shouldn't be u8?

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

> +int olpc_ec_sci_query(u16 *sci_value)
> +{
> +       struct olpc_ec_priv *ec = ec_priv;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       if (WARN_ON(!ec))
> +               return -ENODEV;
> +
> +       /* EC version 0x5f adds support for wide SCI mask */
> +       if (ec->version >= 0x5f) {
> +               __be16 ec_word;
> +
> +               ret = olpc_ec_cmd(EC_EXT_SCI_QUERY, NULL, 0, (void *)&ec_word, 2);
> +               if (ret == 0)
> +                       *sci_value = be16_to_cpu(ec_word);
> +       } else {
> +               unsigned char ec_byte;

u8?

> +
> +               ret = olpc_ec_cmd(EC_SCI_QUERY, NULL, 0, &ec_byte, 1);
> +               if (ret == 0)
> +                       *sci_value = ec_byte;
> +       }
> +
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(olpc_ec_sci_query);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists