[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025040258-snap-aerospace-6e43@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:16:58 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Akshay Gupta <akshay.gupta@....com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
shyam-sundar.s-k@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com, anand.umarji@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] misc: amd-sbi: Add support for CPUID protocol
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 02:13:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025, at 07:58, Akshay Gupta wrote:
> > - AMD provides custom protocol to read Processor feature
> > capabilities and configuration information through side band.
> > The information is accessed by providing CPUID Function,
> > extended function and thread ID to the protocol.
> > Undefined function returns 0.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Akshay Gupta <akshay.gupta@....com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v6:
> > - Address Arnd comment
> > - Add padding to the uapi structure
> > - Rebased patch, previously patch 8
>
> This changes the UAPI again. since you change the common structure
> layout.
>
> > @@ -134,6 +279,9 @@ static long sbrmi_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned
> > int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > /* Mailbox protocol */
> > ret = rmi_mailbox_xfer(data, &msg);
> > break;
> > + case APML_CPUID:
> > + ret = rmi_cpuid_read(data, &msg);
> > + break;
> > default:
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> As I previously commented, I would prefer to have a highl-level
> interface per specific mailbox item you transfer, but I think that
> is something we can debate, in particular if Greg or the x86
> maintainers think it's ok, I'm not going to object.
>
> However, having a combined ioctl command and data structure
> for rmi_mailbox_xfer(), rmi_cpuid_read() and the commands
> you add later seems to cause a lot of the extra complexity,
> and I think this really has to be done differently, using
> distinct ioctl command numbers for each of them, with an
> appropriate structure to go along with it.
>
> This does mean the existing userspace tool will be incompatible
> with the upstream driver, but it can be easily updated to
> support both kernel interfaces (trying the new one first,
> and falling back to the old on after -ENOTTY).
Different structures per ioctl is the way to go. It's more
self-describing and easier to audit for reviewing that the code is
working properly both in userspace and in the kernel (i.e. tools like
strace work better.)
So I agree with you here.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists