Hi Corey, I won't comment on the IPMI side of this as this isn't my area. However I have a comment on the DMI part:
Le Friday 29 January 2016 à 16:43 -0600, miny...@acm.org a écrit : > From: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com> > > This is so that an IPMI platform device can be created from a > DMI firmware entry. > > Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com> > Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> > --- > drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > include/linux/dmi.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/fwnode.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > index da471b2..13d9bca 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > @@ -41,6 +41,16 @@ static struct dmi_memdev_info { > } *dmi_memdev; > static int dmi_memdev_nr; > > +static void *dmi_zalloc(unsigned len) > +{ > + void *ret = dmi_alloc(len); > + > + if (ret) > + memset(ret, 0, len); > + > + return ret; > +} > + > static const char * __init dmi_string_nosave(const struct dmi_header *dm, u8 > s) > { > const u8 *bp = ((u8 *) dm) + dm->length; > @@ -242,6 +252,12 @@ static void __init dmi_save_type(const struct dmi_header > *dm, int slot, > (...) > @@ -250,15 +266,14 @@ static void __init dmi_save_one_device(int type, const > char *name) > if (dmi_find_device(type, name, NULL)) > return; > > - dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev) + strlen(name) + 1); > + dev = dmi_zalloc(sizeof(*dev) + strlen(name) + 1); > if (!dev) > return; > > dev->type = type; > strcpy((char *)(dev + 1), name); > dev->name = (char *)(dev + 1); > - dev->device_data = NULL; This change seems rather unrelated, and I'm not sure what purpose it serves. On ia64 and arm64 it is clearly redundant as dmi_alloc calls kzalloc directly. On x86_64, extend_brk is called instead (don't ask me why, I have no clue) but looking at the code I see that it does memset(ret, 0, size) as well so memory is also zeroed there. Which makes dmi_alloc the same as dmi_zalloc on all 3 architectures. So please revert this change. This will make your patch easier to review, too. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support