Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <372f76f7b1b7cf3d0ca38a7a84bcc23322ff12ed.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] platform/x86: Add Intel Software Defined Silicon
 driver
From:   "David E. Box" <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
Reply-To: david.e.box@linux.intel.com
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, hdegoede@redhat.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com, mgross@linux.intel.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 04 Feb 2022 05:23:07 -0800
In-Reply-To: <aa16191c1241473fbfd55995bbba37bd2ab4a41c.camel@perches.com>
References: <20220204053046.2475671-1-david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
         <20220204053046.2475671-2-david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
         <aa16191c1241473fbfd55995bbba37bd2ab4a41c.camel@perches.com>
Organization: David E. Box
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-02-04 at 02:14 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-02-03 at 21:30 -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > Intel Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) is a post manufacturing mechanism for
> > activating additional silicon features. Features are enabled through a
> > license activation process.
> 
> Why isn't this a user process and not a kernel one?

This is a mechanism for provisioning CPU features during runtime. It requires a
driver to access the functionality. That functionality is discovered on a multi
functional PCI device that is owned by the upstream intel_vsec driver.

> 
> > V5
> >   - Update kernel version to 5.18 in API doc and copyrights to 2022.
> >   - Remove unneeded prototypes.
> >   - In binary attribute handlers where ret is only used for errors,
> >     replace,
> >               return (ret < 0) ? ret : size;
> >     with,
> >               return ret ?: size;
> 
> I think this style overly tricky.
> 
> Why not the canonical:
> 
> 	if (ret < 0)
> 		return ret;
> 
> 	return size;

I can see not using the 2 parameter shortcut of the ternary operator, but the
regular 3 parameter expression is easy to read for simple operations.

David

> 
>