linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] soc: qcom: aoss: Add debugfs interface for sending messages

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: <c8d8de26-ad21-499a-a0a8-f435d7518ee3@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:37:24 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] soc: qcom: aoss: Add debugfs interface for sending
 messages



On 1/23/24 01:29, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:44:30AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 18.01.2024 03:31, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> In addition to the normal runtime commands, the Always On Processor
>>> (AOP) provides a number of debug commands which can be used during
>>> system debugging for things such as preventing power collapse or placing
>>> floor votes for certain resources. Some of these are documented in the
>>> Robotics RB5 "Debug AOP ADB" linked below.
>>>
>>> Provide a debugfs interface for the developer/tester to send some of
>>> these commands to the AOP, which allow the user to override the DDR
>>> frequency, preventing power collapse of cx and ddr, and prevent AOSS
>>> from going to sleep.
>>>
>>> Link: https://docs.qualcomm.com/bundle/publicresource/topics/80-88500-3/85_Debugging_AOP_ADB.html
>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>   
>>> +struct qmp_debugfs_entry {
>>> +	const char *name;
>>> +	const char *fmt;
>>> +	bool is_bool;
>>
>> This can also be const
>>
>>> +	const char *true_val;
>>> +	const char *false_val;
>>
>> All of these strings can be const ptrs to const data
>>
> 
> These are all const data now, but what would the reason for enforcing it
> in the struct definition be?

I've just written too much rust lately and I'm simply paranoid
about mutability, it seems ;)

Konrad