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
