Hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:40 PM Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +struct qmp_pd {
> + struct qmp *qmp;
> +
> + struct generic_pm_domain pd;
> +
> + const char *name;
nit: why do you need name? Can't you just reach in and use pd.name
since they're the same?
> +static int qmp_pd_clock_toggle(struct qmp_pd *res, bool enable)
> +{
> + char buf[AOSS_QMP_PD_MSG_LEN];
> +
> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "{class: clock, res: %s, val: %d}",
> + res->name, !!enable);
nit: "enable" is a bool, so "!!" shouldn't be necessary right?
> + return qmp_send(res->qmp, buf, sizeof(buf));
It appears that you write a string less than 96 bytes onto your stack
buffer but then send the full 96 bytes of stack to the AOSS. That
doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. Sorry, but your secret plan
to embed NSA code in the AOSS firmware and scrape data off the kernel
stack has been foiled.
> +static int qmp_pd_image_toggle(struct qmp_pd *res, bool enable)
> +{
> + char buf[AOSS_QMP_PD_MSG_LEN];
> +
> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf),
> + "{class: image, res: load_state, name: %s, val: %s}",
> + res->name, enable ? "on" : "off");
> + return qmp_send(res->qmp, buf, sizeof(buf));
Please tell me you're joking that for turning on/off clocks "val" is
1/0 but for turning off images "val" is on/off.
> +static int qmp_pd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct genpd_onecell_data *data;
> + struct device *parent = pdev->dev.parent;
> + struct qmp_pd *res;
> + struct qmp *qmp;
> + size_t num = ARRAY_SIZE(sdm845_resources);
> + int i;
> +
> + qmp = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + if (!qmp)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + res = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, num, sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!res)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + data->domains = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, num, sizeof(*data->domains),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> + pm_genpd_init(&res[i].pd, NULL, true);
> + res[i].qmp = qmp;
> + res[i].name = sdm845_resources[i].name;
> +
> + res[i].pd.name = sdm845_resources[i].name;
> + res[i].pd.power_on = sdm845_resources[i].on;
> + res[i].pd.power_off = sdm845_resources[i].off;
> +
> + data->domains[data->num_domains++] = &res[i].pd;
nit: data->domains[i] = &res[i].pd;
...and then somewhere in this function (not in the loop) just write:
data->num_domains = num;
I think that's the same, right? They you don't have to re-compute
num_domains by adding 1 at at time and it'd also be more obvious that
all the array accesses in the loop were the same number?
-Doug
