| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <F6FB0E698C9B3143BDF729DF22286646E06B@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:27:09 +0000
From: "Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
To: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 7/9] ixgbe: add support functions for gathering
thermal data sensor
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@...zoreil.com]
>Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:01 AM
>To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T
>Cc: davem@...emloft.net; Skidmore, Donald C; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
>gospo@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com; Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P
>Subject: Re: [net-next 7/9] ixgbe: add support functions for gathering
>thermal data sensor
>
>Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> :
>> From: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
>>
>> Some 82599 adapters contain thermal data that we can get to via
>> an i2c interface. These functions provide support to get at that
>> data. A following patch will export this data.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
>> Tested-by: Stephen Ko <stephen.s.ko@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_common.c | 150
>+++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_common.h | 13 ++
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h | 38 ++++++
>> 3 files changed, 201 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_common.c
>b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_common.c
>> index a3aa633..05aa156 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_common.c
>> @@ -3526,3 +3526,153 @@ void ixgbe_clear_tx_pending(struct ixgbe_hw
>*hw)
>> IXGBE_WRITE_REG(hw, IXGBE_GCR_EXT, gcr_ext);
>> IXGBE_WRITE_REG(hw, IXGBE_HLREG0, hlreg0);
>> }
>> +
>> +static const u8 ixgbe_emc_temp_data[4] = {
>> + IXGBE_EMC_INTERNAL_DATA,
>> + IXGBE_EMC_DIODE1_DATA,
>> + IXGBE_EMC_DIODE2_DATA,
>> + IXGBE_EMC_DIODE3_DATA
>> +};
>> +static const u8 ixgbe_emc_therm_limit[4] = {
>> + IXGBE_EMC_INTERNAL_THERM_LIMIT,
>> + IXGBE_EMC_DIODE1_THERM_LIMIT,
>> + IXGBE_EMC_DIODE2_THERM_LIMIT,
>> + IXGBE_EMC_DIODE3_THERM_LIMIT
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * ixgbe_get_thermal_sensor_data - Gathers thermal sensor data
>> + * @hw: pointer to hardware structure
>> + * @data: pointer to the thermal sensor data structure
>> + *
>> + * Returns the thermal sensor data structure
>> + **/
>> +s32 ixgbe_get_thermal_sensor_data_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
>> +{
>> + s32 status = 0;
>> + u16 ets_offset;
>> + u16 ets_cfg;
>> + u16 ets_sensor;
>> + u8 num_sensors;
>> + u8 sensor_index;
>> + u8 sensor_location;
>> + u8 i;
>> + struct ixgbe_thermal_sensor_data *data = &hw-
>>mac.thermal_sensor_data;
>> +
>> + /* Only support thermal sensors attached to 82599 physical port 0
>*/
>> + if ((hw->mac.type != ixgbe_mac_82599EB) ||
>> + (IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_STATUS) & IXGBE_STATUS_LAN_ID_1)) {
>> + status = IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>
>While defined, IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED is currently unused in both davem-
>next
>and the remaining patches of this series. Can't you remove it completely
>and
>use a standard error code, say -EOPNOTSUPP ?
Previously we have only been using EOPNOTSUPP and it's like as a return value seen outside the driver particularly to user space. Looking through a few other device drivers (in no way an extensive search) they 'seem' to be following that model too. Still that said I'm not aware of this being a BKM it's just what I noticed.
>
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + status = hw->eeprom.ops.read(hw, IXGBE_ETS_CFG, &ets_offset);
>> + if (status)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + if ((ets_offset == 0x0000) || (ets_offset == 0xFFFF)) {
>> + status = IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + status = hw->eeprom.ops.read(hw, ets_offset, &ets_cfg);
>> + if (status)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + if (((ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_MASK) >> IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_SHIFT)
>> + != IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_EMC) {
> ^^ -> should appear in the previous line
>
I'm probably just missing your point, but if I added this to the previous line I would be over 80 chars?
if (((ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_MASK) >> IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_SHIFT) != IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_EMC) {
Or are you talking about just moving the "!=" to the previous line?
if (((ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_MASK) >> IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_SHIFT) !=
IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_EMC) {
I have a strong feeling I'm just not getting what you're suggesting here. Please clue me in.
>> + status = IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + num_sensors = (ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_NUM_SENSORS_MASK);
>> + if (num_sensors > IXGBE_MAX_SENSORS)
>> + num_sensors = IXGBE_MAX_SENSORS;
>
>ets_cfg is not used beyond this point and most of this code is
>duplicated
>in .
>
>You may refactor the code with xyz_get_ets_offset() and
>xyz_get_num_sensors()
>methods, add some eth_type local variable and avoid the duplication
>while
>keeping the lines short.
>
While I like this idea and it would remove some duplicate code, I need to use ets_cfg in ixgbe_init_thermal_sensor_thresh_generic() to get the low_thresh_delta. This makes the support function a little less useful as it would either need to return two values (num_sensors and low_thresh_delta) or just the ets_cfs itself. For the latter case the support function would just be making two reads and we would still need the local variables. Still might be worth it though.
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_sensors; i++) {
>
>sensor_index and sensor_location should be declared here.
>
Agreed. :)
>> + status = hw->eeprom.ops.read(hw, (ets_offset + 1 + i),
>> + &ets_sensor);
>> + if (status)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + sensor_index = ((ets_sensor & IXGBE_ETS_DATA_INDEX_MASK) >>
>> + IXGBE_ETS_DATA_INDEX_SHIFT);
>> + sensor_location = ((ets_sensor & IXGBE_ETS_DATA_LOC_MASK) >>
>> + IXGBE_ETS_DATA_LOC_SHIFT);
>> +
>> + if (sensor_location != 0) {
>> + status = hw->phy.ops.read_i2c_byte(hw,
>> + ixgbe_emc_temp_data[sensor_index],
>> + IXGBE_I2C_THERMAL_SENSOR_ADDR,
>> + &data->sensor[i].temp);
>> + if (status)
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>
>Broken indentation.
Glad you noticed this I will correct it.
>
>> + }
>> +out:
>> + return status;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * ixgbe_init_thermal_sensor_thresh_generic - Inits thermal sensor
>thresholds
>> + * @hw: pointer to hardware structure
>> + *
>> + * Inits the thermal sensor thresholds according to the NVM map
>> + * and save off the threshold and location values into
>mac.thermal_sensor_data
>> + **/
>> +s32 ixgbe_init_thermal_sensor_thresh_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
>> +{
>> + s32 status = 0;
>> + u16 ets_offset;
>> + u16 ets_cfg;
>> + u16 ets_sensor;
>> + u8 low_thresh_delta;
>> + u8 num_sensors;
>> + u8 sensor_index;
>> + u8 sensor_location;
>> + u8 therm_limit;
>> + u8 i;
>> + struct ixgbe_thermal_sensor_data *data = &hw-
>>mac.thermal_sensor_data;
>> +
>> + memset(data, 0, sizeof(struct ixgbe_thermal_sensor_data));
>> +
>> + /* Only support thermal sensors attached to 82599 physical port 0
>*/
>> + if ((hw->mac.type != ixgbe_mac_82599EB) ||
>> + (IXGBE_READ_REG(hw, IXGBE_STATUS) & IXGBE_STATUS_LAN_ID_1))
>> + return IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>> +
>> + hw->eeprom.ops.read(hw, IXGBE_ETS_CFG, &ets_offset);
>> + if ((ets_offset == 0x0000) || (ets_offset == 0xFFFF))
>> + return IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>> +
>> + hw->eeprom.ops.read(hw, ets_offset, &ets_cfg);
>> + if (((ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_MASK) >> IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_SHIFT)
>> + != IXGBE_ETS_TYPE_EMC)
> ^^ sic
>
Like I mentioned about I don't think I understand what you're pointing out here.
>> + return IXGBE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
>> +
>> + low_thresh_delta = ((ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_LTHRES_DELTA_MASK) >>
>> + IXGBE_ETS_LTHRES_DELTA_SHIFT);
>> + num_sensors = (ets_cfg & IXGBE_ETS_NUM_SENSORS_MASK);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_sensors; i++) {
>> + hw->eeprom.ops.read(hw, (ets_offset + 1 + i), &ets_sensor);
>> + sensor_index = ((ets_sensor & IXGBE_ETS_DATA_INDEX_MASK) >>
>> + IXGBE_ETS_DATA_INDEX_SHIFT);
>> + sensor_location = ((ets_sensor & IXGBE_ETS_DATA_LOC_MASK) >>
>> + IXGBE_ETS_DATA_LOC_SHIFT);
>> + therm_limit = ets_sensor & IXGBE_ETS_DATA_HTHRESH_MASK;
>> +
>> + hw->phy.ops.write_i2c_byte(hw,
>> + ixgbe_emc_therm_limit[sensor_index],
>> + IXGBE_I2C_THERMAL_SENSOR_ADDR, therm_limit);
>> +
>> + if ((i < IXGBE_MAX_SENSORS) && (sensor_location != 0)) {
>
>The patch would be easier to review if num_sensors was capped as in
>ixgbe_get_thermal_sensor_data_generic...
>
>> + data->sensor[i].location = sensor_location;
>> + data->sensor[i].caution_thresh = therm_limit;
>> + data->sensor[i].max_op_thresh = therm_limit -
>> + low_thresh_delta;
>
>... and the code would gain an extra tab level, thus avoiding the line
>break if there was a 'continue' statement when sensor_location fails the
>test.
I like this too and will update the patch.
Thanks for review I do really appreciate it.
-Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
>
>--
>Ueimor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists