linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] asus-wmi: Add support for platform

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: <UCVTXQ.8ME64G0S1BQ8@ljones.dev>
Date:   Sat, 14 Aug 2021 23:46:06 +1200
From:   Luke Jones <luke@...nes.dev>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] asus-wmi: Add support for platform_profile

Hi Andy, thanks for the feedback. All is addressed, and some inline 
comment/reply. New version incoming pending pr_info() vs dev_info()

On Sat, Aug 14 2021 at 12:40:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko 
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 7:33 AM Luke D. Jones <luke@...nes.dev> wrote:
>> 
>>  Add initial support for platform_profile where the support is
>>  based on availability of ASUS_THROTTLE_THERMAL_POLICY.
>> 
>>  Because throttle_thermal_policy is used by platform_profile and is
>>  writeable separately to platform_profile any userspace changes to
>>  throttle_thermal_policy need to notify platform_profile.
>> 
>>  In future throttle_thermal_policy sysfs should be removed so that
>>  only one method controls the laptop power profile.
> 
> Some comments below.
> 
> ...
> 
>>  +       /*
>>  +        * Ensure that platform_profile updates userspace with the 
>> change to ensure
>>  +        * that platform_profile and throttle_thermal_policy_mode 
>> are in sync
> 
> Missed period here and in other multi-line comments.
> 
>>  +        */
> 
> ...
> 
>>  +       /* All possible toggles like throttle_thermal_policy here */
>>  +       if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
>>  +               tp = asus->throttle_thermal_policy_mode;
>>  +       } else {
>>  +               return -1;
>>  +       }
>>  +
>>  +       if (tp < 0)
>>  +               return tp;
> 
> This will be better in a form
> 
>     if (!..._available)
>         return -ENODATA; // what -1 means?
> 

I wasn't sure what the best return was here. On your suggestion I've 
changed to ENODATA

>     tp = ...;
>     if (tp < 0)
>         return tp;
> 
> ...
> 
>>  +       /* All possible toggles like throttle_thermal_policy here */
>>  +       if (!asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
>>  +               return -1;
> 
> See above.
> 
>>  +       }
> 
> ...
> 
>>  +       if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
>>  +               pr_info("Using throttle_thermal_policy for 
>> platform_profile support\n");
> 
> Why pr_*()?

That seemed to be the convention? I see there is also dev_info(), so 
I've switched to that as it seems more appropriate.

> 
>>  +       } else {
>>  +               /*
>>  +                * Not an error if a component platform_profile 
>> relies on is unavailable
>>  +                * so early return, skipping the setup of 
>> platform_profile.
>>  +               */
>>  +               return 0;
> 
> Do it other way around,
> 
> /*
>  * Comment
>  */
> if (!...)
>   return 0;

Thanks, I think I was transliterating thought process to code as I went 
along.
All updated now.

> 
>>  +       }
> 
> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko