Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:12:59 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@collabora.com>,
        groeck@chromium.org, bleung@chromium.org, dtor@chromium.org,
        gwendal@chromium.org, vbendeb@chromium.org, andy@infradead.org,
        Ayman Bagabas <ayman.bagabas@gmail.com>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?Qmxhxb4=?= Hrastnik <blaz@mxxn.io>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Jeremy Soller <jeremy@system76.com>,
        Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@mok.nu>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] platform: x86: Add ACPI driver for ChromeOS
Message-ID: <20200413141259.GA3458877@kroah.com>
References: <20200413134611.478441-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200413134611.478441-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Meta-comment to the ACPI developers, shouldn't all of this happen
"automatically" with the existing ACPI entries in sysfs?  If not, is
this driver the proper way to do this?

Minor review comments below:


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> +What:		/sys/bus/acpi/devices/GGL0001:00/BINF.{0,1,4}
> +Date:		April 2020
> +KernelVersion:	5.8
> +Description:
> +		This file is reserved and doesn't shows useful information
> +		for now.

Then do not even have it present.  sysfs should never export files that
nothing can be done with them, userspace "knows" that if a file is not
present, it can not use it.  Bring it back when it is useful.

> +What:		/sys/bus/acpi/devices/GGL0001:00/MECK
> +Date:		April 2020
> +KernelVersion:	5.8
> +Description:
> +		This binary file returns the SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash that is
> +		read out of the Management Engine extend registers during
> +		boot. The hash is exported vi ACPI so the OS can verify that
> +		the Management Engine firmware has not changed. If Management
> +		Engine is not present, or if the firmware was unable to read the
> +		extend registers, this buffer can be zero.

The size is zero, or the contents are 0?

> +static char *chromeos_acpi_alloc_name(char *name, int count, int index)
> +{
> +	char *str;
> +
> +	if (count == 1)
> +		str = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	else
> +		str = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s.%d", name, index);

That's crazy, make this more obvious that "count" affects the name so
much.  As it is, no one would know this unless they read the function
code, and not just the name.


> +/**
> + * chromeos_acpi_add_group() - Create a sysfs group including attributes
> + *			       representing a nested ACPI package.
> + *
> + * @adev: ACPI device.
> + * @obj: Package contents as returned by ACPI.
> + * @name: Name of the group.
> + * @num_attrs: Number of attributes of this package.
> + * @index: Index number of this particular group.
> + *
> + * The created group is called @name in case there is a single instance, or
> + * @name.@index otherwise.
> + *
> + * All group and attribute storage allocations are included in the lists for
> + * tracking of allocated memory.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
> + */

Meta-comment, no need for kerneldoc on static functions.  It's nice to
see, but nothing is going to notice them...

> +static int chromeos_acpi_add_method(struct acpi_device *adev, char *name)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &adev->dev;
> +	struct acpi_buffer output;
> +	union acpi_object *obj;
> +	acpi_status status;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	output.length = ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER;
> +
> +	status = acpi_evaluate_object(adev->handle, name, NULL, &output);
> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to retrieve %s (%d)\n", name, status);
> +		return status;
> +	}
> +
> +	obj = output.pointer;
> +	if (obj->type == ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE)
> +		ret = chromeos_acpi_handle_package(adev, obj, name);
> +
> +	kfree(output.pointer);

Why the need for 'obj' at all in this function?  Minor nit.

> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int chromeos_acpi_device_add(struct acpi_device *adev)
> +{
> +	struct chromeos_acpi_attribute_group *aag = chromeos_acpi.root;
> +	struct device *dev = &adev->dev;
> +	int i, ret;
> +
> +	aag = kzalloc(sizeof(*aag), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!aag)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&aag->attribs);
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&aag->list);
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&chromeos_acpi.groups);
> +
> +	chromeos_acpi.root = aag;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Attempt to add methods by querying the device's MLST method
> +	 * for the list of methods.
> +	 */
> +	if (!chromeos_acpi_process_mlst(adev))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	dev_info(dev, "falling back to default list of methods\n");

Is this debugging code left over?  If not, make it an error, and what
would a user be able to do with it?

thanks,

greg k-h