linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 18/20] RISC-V: Add ACPI initialization in setup

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: <ZAhYeuCmdYAnanNv@sunil-laptop>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:12:18 +0530
From:   Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        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>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        'Conor Dooley ' <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 18/20] RISC-V: Add ACPI initialization in setup_arch()

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:17:34PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:45PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > Initialize the ACPI core for RISC-V during boot.
> > 
> > ACPI tables and interpreter are initialized based on
> > the information passed from the firmware and the value of
> > the kernel parameter 'acpi'.
> > 
> > With ACPI support added for RISC-V, the kernel parameter 'acpi'
> > is also supported on RISC-V. Hence, update the documentation.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
> > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
> > ---
> 
> > +static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct acpi_table_header *table;
> > +	struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt;
> > +	acpi_status status;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * FADT is required on riscv; retrieve it to check its presence
> > +	 * and carry out revision and ACPI HW reduced compliancy tests
> > +	 */
> > +	status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_FADT, 0, &table);
> > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > +		const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
> > +
> > +		pr_err("Failed to get FADT table, %s\n", msg);
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Revision in table header is the FADT Major revision, and there
> > +	 * is a minor revision of FADT.
> 
> What is the point of this part of the comment? Isn't it obvious from the
> below code that you expect a major and minor revision?
> If feel like you're trying to make a point in it, but the point has been
> lost :/
> 
It just highlights that major and minor revision fields are in two
different places. Let me remove this comment since it is part of the
spec anyway.

Thanks,
Sunil