linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] MFD: intel

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: <e734a968-818a-380d-0ae5-fee41b3db246@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:39:39 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     david.e.box@...ux.intel.com, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     mgross@...ux.intel.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] MFD: intel_pmt: Remove OOBMSM device

Hi,

On 6/30/21 11:11 PM, David E. Box wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 11:15 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, David E. Box wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike the other devices in intel_pmt, the Out of Band Management
>>> Services
>>> Module (OOBMSM) is actually not a PMT dedicated device. It can also
>>> be used
>>> to describe non-PMT capabilities. Like PMT, these capabilities are
>>> also
>>> enumerated using PCIe Vendor Specific registers in config space. In
>>> order
>>> to better support these devices without the confusion of a
>>> dependency on
>>> MFD_INTEL_PMT, remove the OOBMSM device from intel_pmt so that it
>>> can be
>>> later placed in its own driver. Since much of the same code will be
>>> used by
>>> intel_pmt and the new driver, create a new file with symbols to be
>>> used by
>>> both.
>>>
>>> While performing this split we need to also handle the creation of
>>> platform
>>> devices for the non-PMT capabilities. Currently PMT devices are
>>> named by
>>> their capability (e.g. pmt_telemetry). Instead, generically name
>>> them by
>>> their capability ID (e.g. intel_extnd_cap_2). This allows the IDs
>>> to be
>>> created automatically.  However, to ensure that unsupported devices
>>> aren't
>>> created, use an allow list to specify supported capabilities.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  MAINTAINERS                                |   1 +
>>>  drivers/mfd/Kconfig                        |   4 +
>>>  drivers/mfd/Makefile                       |   1 +
>>>  drivers/mfd/intel_extended_caps.c          | 208
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Please consider moving this <whatever this is> out to either
>> drivers/pci or drivers/platform/x86.
> 
> None of the cell drivers are in MFD, only the PCI drivers from which
> the cells are created. I understood that these should be in MFD. But
> moving it to drivers/platform/x86 would be fine with me. That keeps the
> code together in the same subsystem. Comment from Hans or Andy? 

I'm fine with moving everything to drivers/platform/x86, but AFAIK
usually the actual code which has the MFD cells and creates the
child devices usually lives under drivers/mfd

Regards,

Hans



> 
>>
>> I suggest Andy should also be on Cc.
>>
>>>  drivers/mfd/intel_extended_caps.h          |  40 ++++
>>>  drivers/mfd/intel_pmt.c                    | 198 ++---------------
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmt_crashlog.c  |   2 +-
>>>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmt_telemetry.c |   2 +-
>>>  8 files changed, 270 insertions(+), 186 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/intel_extended_caps.c
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/intel_extended_caps.h
>>
> 
>