[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7867a727-9bdf-2e48-2a90-c1f31b312c9f@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:09:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
cc: Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86/amd/pmf: Do not use readl() for policy
buffer access
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Armin Wolf wrote:
> The policy buffer is allocated using normal memory allocation
> functions, so readl() should not be used on it.
>
> Compile-tested only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c
> index 16973bebf55f..70d09103ab18 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c
> @@ -249,8 +249,8 @@ static int amd_pmf_start_policy_engine(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev)
> u32 cookie, length;
> int res;
>
> - cookie = readl(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET);
> - length = readl(dev->policy_buf + POLICY_COOKIE_LEN);
> + cookie = dev->policy_buf[POLICY_COOKIE_OFFSET];
> + length = dev->policy_buf[POLICY_COOKIE_LEN];
Hmm, the next question is, is it okay to get just 8 bits instead the full
dword (the policy_buf is unsigned char *)?
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists