Hi,
On 13-01-2020 15:53, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 03:56:58PM +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@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes in v11:
- Drop a few empty lines which were accidentally introduced
But you didn't address my other feedback.
--- a/lib/test_firmware.c
+++ b/lib/test_firmware.c
@@ -507,6 +508,61 @@ 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);
+
I mentioned this in my last review, and it seems you forgot to address
this.
I did address this in my reply to your review, as explained there,
the check + free on test_firmware before calling firmware_request_platform()
is necessary because test_firmware may be non NULL when entering
the function (continued below) ...
But now some more feedback:
These two:
+ mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
+ release_firmware(test_firmware);
You are doing this because this is a test, but a typical driver will
do this after, and we don't loose anything in doing this after. Can you
move the mutex lock and assign the pointer to a temporary used pointer
for the call, *after* your call.
But since your test is not using any interfaces to query information
about the firmware, and you are just doing the test in C code right
away, instead of say, using a trigger for later use in userspace,
you can just do away with the mutex lock and make the call use its
own pointer:
rc = firmware_request_platform(&tmp_test_firmware, name, dev);
if (rc) {
...
}
/* Your test branch code goes here */
I see no reason why you use the test_firmware pointer.
I agree that using a private/local firmware pointer instead of
test_firmware and dropping the mutex calls is better. I will make
this change for v12 of this series.
I'll send out a v12 once the remarks from Andy Lutomirski's
have also been discussed.
Regards,
Hans
+ test_firmware = NULL;
+ 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;
+
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
+
+ list_del(&fw.list);
+ kfree(name);
+
+ return rc;
+}
