linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/24] RISC-V: ACPI: cpu: Enable cpuinfo for ACPI systems

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:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:12:40 +0530
From:   Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/24] RISC-V: ACPI: cpu: Enable cpuinfo for ACPI systems

On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:13:37PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:52:21PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > On ACPI based platforms, few details like ISA need to be read
> > from the ACPI table. Enable cpuinfo on ACPI based systems.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > index 1b9a5a66e55a..bd6c0fcfe4ce 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> >   * Copyright (C) 2012 Regents of the University of California
> >   */
> >  
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> >  #include <linux/cpu.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> > @@ -256,26 +257,47 @@ static void c_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  {
> >  }
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +void acpi_print_hart_info(struct seq_file *m,
> > +			  unsigned long cpu)
> 
> Surely this fits on one line?
> 
Okay

> > +{
> > +	const char *isa;
> > +
> > +	if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, get_acpi_id_for_cpu(cpu), &isa))
> > +		print_isa(m, isa);
> 
> Do you really need to guard this function? Aren't there nop'ed versions
> of acpi_get_riscv_isa() and get_acpi_id_for_cpu() in acpi.h?
> 
> IMO, basically any use of ifdeffery you can cleanly remove from a c file
> is a worthwhile change.
> 
You are right. Let me remove ifdef.

> > +
> 
> Extra blank line here FYI.
> 
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long cpu_id = (unsigned long)v - 1;
> > -	struct device_node *node = of_get_cpu_node(cpu_id, NULL);
> >  	struct riscv_cpuinfo *ci = per_cpu_ptr(&riscv_cpuinfo, cpu_id);
> > +	struct device_node *node;
> >  	const char *compat, *isa;
> >  
> >  	seq_printf(m, "processor\t: %lu\n", cpu_id);
> >  	seq_printf(m, "hart\t\t: %lu\n", cpuid_to_hartid_map(cpu_id));
> > -	if (!of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa))
> > -		print_isa(m, isa);
> > +
> > +	if (acpi_disabled) {
> > +		node = of_get_cpu_node(cpu_id, NULL);
> > +		if (!of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa))
> > +			print_isa(m, isa);
> > +		if (!of_property_read_string(node, "compatible", &compat)
> > +		    && strcmp(compat, "riscv"))
>                     ^^ this should be on the line above
> TBH the whole series is in need of a checkpatch --strict run IMO,
> there's a bunch of coding style issues throughout.
> 
I just moved this line as is. Sure, let me fix it. Thanks.

> > +			seq_printf(m, "uarch\t\t: %s\n", compat);
> > +		of_node_put(node);
> > +	}
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +	else
> > +		acpi_print_hart_info(m, cpu_id);
> 
> Delete the ifdeffery here too please :)
> 
Okay

Thanks,
Sunil