linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: utils: introduce acpi_get_local_u64

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: <998d53cf-c22b-4706-93af-ab38802dc531@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:33:00 +0200
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, tiwai@...e.de,
 broonie@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
 Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>,
 Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 "open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
 open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: utils: introduce acpi_get_local_u64_address()

On 6/7/24 20:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 9:29 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart
> <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> The ACPI _ADR is a 64-bit value. We changed the definitions in commit
>> ca6f998cf9a2 ("ACPI: bus: change _ADR representation to 64 bits") but
>> some helpers still assume the value is a 32-bit value.
>>
>> This patch adds a new helper to extract the full 64-bits. The existing
>> 32-bit helper is kept for backwards-compatibility and cases where the
>> _ADR is known to fit in a 32-bit value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Péter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Do you want me to apply this or do you want me to route it along with
> the rest of the series?
> 
> In the latter case feel free to add
> 
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

Thanks Rafael. I think it's easier if Mark Brown takes the series in
ASoC, I have additional ASoC patches that use the u64 helper.

Mark?

>>
>> +int acpi_get_local_u64_address(acpi_handle handle, u64 *addr)
>> +{
>> +       acpi_status status;
>> +
>> +       status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, METHOD_NAME__ADR, NULL, addr);
>> +       if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> +               return -ENODATA;
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_get_local_u64_address);
> 
> I'd prefer EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() here unless you absolutely cannot live with it.

I don't mind, but the existing helper was using EXPORT_SYMBOL so I just
copied. It'd be odd to have two helpers that only differ by the argument
size use a different EXPORT_ macro, no? Not to mention that the
get_local address uses EXPORT_SYMBOL but would become a wrapper for an
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. That gives me a headache...

This was the original code:

int acpi_get_local_address(acpi_handle handle, u32 *addr)
{
	unsigned long long adr;
	acpi_status status;

	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, METHOD_NAME__ADR, NULL, &adr);
	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
		return -ENODATA;

	*addr = (u32)adr;
	return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_get_local_address);