On 02/01/2016 03:25 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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, [email protected] a écrit : >> From: Corey Minyard <[email protected]> >> >> This is so that an IPMI platform device can be created from a >> DMI firmware entry. >> >> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> >> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> >> --- >> 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. > Ok. I had assumed extend_break wasn't zeroing since there were all the NULL assignments, I should have looked.
I was thinking about this, and the fwnode could just be added to the IPMI device. I'm not sure if you would prefer that over adding it to dmi_device. The fwnode is in acpi_device, and I was modelling these changes after that, but maybe that's not required here. Thanks, -corey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
