On 01/21/2016 10:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> On 18 January 2016 at 06:10, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> +static const char *
>> +managed_falcons_names[] = {
>> + [NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_PMU] = "PMU",
>> + [NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_RESERVED] = "<invalid>",
> "<reserved>" perhaps ? we already have one invalid below.
Does <reserved> really mean: "we don't want to tell you?" here? :)
>
>> + [NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_FECS] = "FECS",
>> + [NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_GPCCS] = "GPCCS",
>> + [NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_END] = "<invalid>",
>> +};
>> +
>
> [snip]
>> +int
>> +nvkm_secboot_ctor(const struct nvkm_secboot_func *func,
>> + struct nvkm_device *device, int index,
>> + struct nvkm_secboot *sb)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long fid;
>> +
>> + nvkm_subdev_ctor(&nvkm_secboot, device, index, 0, &sb->subdev);
>> + sb->func = func;
>> +
> Move these two after the switch statement ?
They need to be done here to make the failure path cleanup stuff work
correctly, so it's correct as-is.
>
>> + /* setup the performing falcon's base address and masks */
>> + switch (func->boot_falcon) {
>> + case NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_PMU:
>> + sb->base = 0x10a000;
>> + sb->irq_mask = 0x1000000;
>> + sb->enable_mask = 0x2000;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + nvdev_error(device, "invalid secure boot falcon\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + };
>> +
>> + nvkm_info(&sb->subdev, "securely managed falcons:\n");
>> + for_each_set_bit(fid, &sb->func->managed_falcons,
>> + NVKM_SECBOOT_FALCON_END)
>> + nvkm_info(&sb->subdev, "- %s\n", managed_falcons_names[fid]);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Cheers,
> Emil
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
