[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6842862-935f-4b3e-9f67-69e09307b851@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 21:42:16 +0200
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>, Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/10] platform/x86: msi-wmi-platform: Use input buffer
for returning result
Am 12.05.25 um 01:31 schrieb Kurt Borja:
> On Sun May 11, 2025 at 5:44 PM -03, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
>> From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
>>
>> Modify msi_wmi_platform_query() to reuse the input buffer for
>> returning the result of a WMI method call. Using a separate output
>> buffer to return the result is unnecessary because the WMI interface
>> requires both buffers to have the same length anyway.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@...heas.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/msi-wmi-platform.c | 53 ++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/msi-wmi-platform.c b/drivers/platform/x86/msi-wmi-platform.c
>> index dc5e9878cb682..41218a9d6e35d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/msi-wmi-platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/msi-wmi-platform.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
>> #include <linux/printk.h>
>> #include <linux/rwsem.h>
>> +#include <linux/string.h>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <linux/wmi.h>
>>
>> @@ -140,19 +141,19 @@ static int msi_wmi_platform_parse_buffer(union acpi_object *obj, u8 *output, siz
>> }
>>
>> static int msi_wmi_platform_query(struct msi_wmi_platform_data *data,
>> - enum msi_wmi_platform_method method, u8 *input,
>> - size_t input_length, u8 *output, size_t output_length)
>> + enum msi_wmi_platform_method method, u8 *buffer,
>> + size_t length)
>> {
>> struct acpi_buffer out = ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
>> struct acpi_buffer in =
>> - .length = nput_length,
>> - .pointer =nput
>> + .length =ength,
>> + .pointer =uffer
>> };
>> union acpi_object *obj;
>> acpi_status status;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (!input_length || !output_length)
>> + if (!length)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -169,7 +170,7 @@ static int msi_wmi_platform_query(struct msi_wmi_platform_data *data,
>> if (!obj)
>> return -ENODATA;
>>
>> - ret =si_wmi_platform_parse_buffer(obj, output, output_length);
>> + ret =si_wmi_platform_parse_buffer(obj, buffer, length);
>> kfree(obj);
>>
>> return ret;
>> @@ -185,17 +186,15 @@ static int msi_wmi_platform_read(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types typ
>> int channel, long *val)
>> {
>> struct msi_wmi_platform_data *data =ev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> - u8 input[32] = 0 };
>> - u8 output[32];
>> + u8 buffer[32] = 0 };
>> u16 value;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - ret =si_wmi_platform_query(data, MSI_PLATFORM_GET_FAN, input, sizeof(input), output,
>> - sizeof(output));
>> + ret =si_wmi_platform_query(data, MSI_PLATFORM_GET_FAN, buf, sizeof(buf));
> s/buf/buffer/
>
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - value =et_unaligned_be16(&output[channel * 2 + 1]);
>> + value =et_unaligned_be16(&buffer[channel * 2 + 1]);
>> if (!value)
>> *val =;
>> else
>> @@ -245,13 +244,17 @@ static ssize_t msi_wmi_platform_write(struct file *fp, const char __user *input,
>> return ret;
>>
>> down_write(&data->buffer_lock);
>> - ret =si_wmi_platform_query(data->data, data->method, payload, data->length, data->buffer,
>> + ret =si_wmi_platform_query(data->data, data->method, data->buffer,
> Is this logic right? Shouldn't we pass payload instead of data->buffer?
>
> Better yet, I think we should write the payload directly to
> data->buffer and drop the memcpy hunk bellow
>
You are right that we indeed pass the wrong buffer here, but we should only update data->buffer
if msi_wmi_platform_query() was successful. That why we have the call to memcpy().
Thanks,
Armin Wolf
Powered by blists - more mailing lists