Thanks for the excellent review comments. I'll do another spin an try to incorporate most them.
/Jarkko On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:26:46AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:23:56PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > Traversal of the ACPI device tree was not done right. It should lookup > > PPI only under the ACPI device that it is associated. Otherwise, it could > > match to a wrong PPI interface if there are two TPM devices in the device > > tree. > > > > Removed global ACPI handle and version string from tpm_ppi.c as this > > is racy. Instead they should be associated with the chip. > > > > Moved code just a tiny bit towards two-phase allocation to implement > > fix for the PPI race conditions. > > Not this version.. > > > Added missing copyright platter to tpm_ppi.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> > > I like this one the most of the three I've seen :) > > Did you also look in tpm_acpi.c to see if it needs to use > acpi_dev_handle somehow too? > > > + union acpi_object *obj; > > + struct kobject *parent = &chip->dev->kobj; > > Nit, this variable is only used once, it would be clearer to inline > > > + /* Cache PPI version string. */ > > + obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(chip->acpi_dev_handle, tpm_ppi_uuid, > > + TPM_PPI_REVISION_ID, TPM_PPI_FN_VERSION, > > + NULL, ACPI_TYPE_STRING); > > + if (obj) { > > + strlcpy(chip->ppi_version, obj->string.pointer, > > + PPI_VERSION_LEN + 1); > > + ACPI_FREE(obj); > > + } else > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + return chip->acpi_dev_handle ? > > + sysfs_create_group(parent, &ppi_attr_grp) : 0; > > The above sequence can just be: > > if (!obj) > return -ENOMEM; > > strlcpy(chip->ppi_version, obj->string.pointer, sizeof(chip->ppi_version)); > ACPI_FREE(obj); > > return sysfs_create_group(&chip->dev->kobj, &ppi_attr_grp); > > Which is more idiomatic. Also remove TPM_PPI_VERSION_LEN, sizeof is better. > > I know nothing about acpi, but is ENOMEM the right code? I would think > acpi_evalute_dsm_typed would also fail if tpm_ppi_uuid is not found?? > > > + return chip->acpi_dev_handle ? > > + sysfs_create_group(parent, &ppi_attr_grp) : 0; > > dev_handle is already checked to be non 0 > > > +void tpm_remove_ppi(struct tpm_chip *chip) > > + struct kobject *parent = &chip->dev->kobj; > > Also used only once > > Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/