lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 05/10] test_firmware: add support for firmware_request_platform
From
Date
Hi,

On 1/6/20 10:33 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:51:12PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Add support for testing firmware_request_platform through a new
>> trigger_request_platform trigger.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> lib/test_firmware.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/test_firmware.c b/lib/test_firmware.c
>> index 251213c872b5..9af00cfc8979 100644
>> --- a/lib/test_firmware.c
>> +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>> #include <linux/delay.h>
>> #include <linux/kthread.h>
>> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
>> +#include <linux/efi_embedded_fw.h>
>>
>> #define TEST_FIRMWARE_NAME "test-firmware.bin"
>> #define TEST_FIRMWARE_NUM_REQS 4
>> @@ -507,12 +508,76 @@ static ssize_t trigger_request_store(struct device *dev,
>> }
>> static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request);
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI_EMBEDDED_FIRMWARE
>> +static ssize_t trigger_request_platform_store(struct device *dev,
>> + struct device_attribute *attr,
>> + const char *buf, size_t count)
>> +{
>> + static const u8 test_data[] = {
>> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04,
>> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08,
>> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40,
>> + 0x55, 0xaa, 0x55, 0xaa, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80
>> + };
>> + struct efi_embedded_fw fw;
>> + int rc;
>> + char *name;
>> +
>> + name = kstrndup(buf, count, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!name)
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> +
>> + pr_info("inserting test platform fw '%s'\n", name);
>> + fw.name = name;
>> + fw.data = (void *)test_data;
>> + fw.length = sizeof(test_data);
>> + list_add(&fw.list, &efi_embedded_fw_list);
>> +
>> + pr_info("loading '%s'\n", name);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
>> + release_firmware(test_firmware);
>> + test_firmware = NULL;
>
> Seems odd to have the above two lines here before the request, why not
> after as noted below.

I modelled this after trigger_request_store which keeps the
test_firmware around after it has been called so that its contents can be
read back from the char misc device which the test_firmware module registers.

Since e.g. trigger_request_store which keeps the test_firmware around
we must check and free it before assigning a new firmware to it using
firmware_request_platform, which is why this is done before and not
after the request.

>
>> + rc = firmware_request_platform(&test_firmware, name, dev);
>> + if (rc) {
>> + pr_info("load of '%s' failed: %d\n", name, rc);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + if (test_firmware->size != sizeof(test_data) ||
>> + memcmp(test_firmware->data, test_data, sizeof(test_data)) != 0) {
>> + pr_info("firmware contents mismatch for '%s'\n", name);
>> + rc = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + pr_info("loaded: %zu\n", test_firmware->size);
>> + rc = count;
>
> Here.
>
>> +
>> +out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
>> +
>> + list_del(&fw.list);
>> + kfree(name);
>> +
>> + return rc;
>> +}
>> +static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request_platform);
>> +#endif
>> +
>> static DECLARE_COMPLETION(async_fw_done);
>>
>> static void trigger_async_request_cb(const struct firmware *fw, void *context)
>> {
>> test_firmware = fw;
>> complete(&async_fw_done);
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> }
>
> Ummm, new empty lines without any code added... did you forget
> something? Please address this.

This is a left over from an earlier version of the patch, my bad, I will remove
this and send out a new version.

Regards,

Hans

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-10 20:50    [W:0.096 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site