Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:12:37 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     hdegoede@redhat.com, markgross@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com,
        ashok.raj@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Read IFS firmware image
Message-ID: <YmgZ9d54sjKllh6U@agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com>
References: <20220419163859.2228874-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20220422200219.2843823-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20220422200219.2843823-5-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <YmfNVG0qLahv7TzL@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YmfNVG0qLahv7TzL@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:45:40PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:02:13PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/Makefile |  2 +-
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/core.c   | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/ifs.h    | 25 +++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c   | 28 +++++++++++++++++++

You haven't commented on the source tree location. With the change
to use misc_register() this isn't a "platform" device anymore.

Should I move to "drivers/misc/"? Or is there some better spot that
preseves the detail that this is an x86/intel driver in the path?

> > +static struct ifs_device ifs_devices[] = {
> > +	[IFS_SAF] = {
> > +		.data = {
> > +			.integrity_cap_bit = MSR_INTEGRITY_CAPS_PERIODIC_BIST_BIT,
> > +		},
> > +		.misc = {
> > +			.name = "intel_ifs_0",
> > +			.nodename = "intel_ifs/0",
> > +			.minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
> > +		},
> > +	},
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define IFS_NUMTESTS ARRAY_SIZE(ifs_devices)
> 
> Cute way to do this, but I don't see you ever have any more devices
> added to this list in this series.  Did I miss them?

That's in part 11/10 ... I have hardware, so I'm pretty sure that this
is a real thing. Just not ready to post until Intel announces the
details of the new test type.

> If not, why all the overhead and complexity involved here for just a
> single misc device?

It didn't seem like a lot of complexity here. It makes the changes to
this file to add an extra test trivial (just a new name in the "enum"
and a new initializer in ifs_devices[]).

Obviously some more code in load.c and runtest.c to handle the new
test type.

If it really is too much now, I can rip it out from this submission
and add it back when the second test is ready for public view.

-Tony