linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: add option to build without ACPI

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: <dbac683e-ab8d-440f-8013-f0ff2287a5ff@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:23:49 +0800
From: Choong Yong Liang <yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 David E Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: add option to build
 without ACPI



On 12/3/2025 3:54 pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 4:30 AM Choong Yong Liang
> <yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, my comments below.
> 
>> This patch introduces a configuration option that allows users to
> 
> s/This patch introduces/Introduce/
> 
>> build the intel_pmc_ipc driver without ACPI support. This is useful
>> for systems where ACPI is not available or desired.
>>
>> Based on the discussion from the patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/
>> project/netdevbpf/patch/20250227121522.1802832-6-
>> yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com/#26280764, it was necessary to
>> provide this option to accommodate specific use cases.
> 
> Make it a Link tag, like
> 
> "...from the patch [1], it was..."
> 
> 
> Link: https://.... [1]
> 
> 
Hi Andy,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggestions. I'll make the 
necessary adjustments to the patch based on your comments above.

>> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Choong Yong Liang <yong.liang.choong@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> This is wrong as either it's a wrong tag (SoB --> Suggested-by?), or
> missing Co-developed-by, or wrong order (but in that case David should
> have sent the patch).
> 
I believe the sequence is still correct, as the solution was provided by 
David, and he should be the main author. I'm just the submitter, so my 
sign-off should be placed last.
> ...
> 
>> +#if CONFIG_ACPI
> 
> Better to have #ifdef, but see below
> 
>>   static inline int intel_pmc_ipc(struct pmc_ipc_cmd *ipc_cmd, struct pmc_ipc_rbuf *rbuf)
>>   {
> 
>>   }
>> +#else
>> +static inline int intel_pmc_ipc(struct pmc_ipc_cmd *ipc_cmd, struct pmc_ipc_rbuf *rbuf)
>> +{ return -ENODEV; }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
> 
> Since it's already static inline, it might be more natural to have
> this inside the function. The current is usually used for the C impl.
> + static inline stub, like
> 
> #ifdef FOO
> int foo(...);
> #else
> static inline int foo(...) { return ... }
> #endif
> 
> But I'm not insisting, it's up to the PDx86 maintainers.
> 
Sure, let's wait for more feedback.