lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/14] dell-laptop: extract SMBIOS-related code to a separate module
Date
On Tuesday 09 February 2016 17:51:06 Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 09:33:03AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 08 February 2016 13:42:10 Darren Hart wrote:
> > > Assuming the above is an accurate view, I don't see any reason to
> > > go beyond the minimal change to the existing SMBIOS code to make
> > > it a usable API. If the need arises, we can always make such
> > > optimizations and performance improvements later. This is an
> > > internal API and we can change it whenever we need to so long as
> > > we update the call sites.
> >
> > Problem is that now smbios code from dell-laptop.c is moved into
> > dell-smbios.c and dell-smbios.h and LED subsystem starts using
> > dell-smbios.h. In this case I'm thinking that we have something
> > like API usable by other modules/subsystem. And I'm thinking if it
> > is not better to create "correct" API now instead rewriting code
> > in LED and platform subsystem again later... As this API needs to
> > provide just 1 function, send command to Dell SMBIOS I think that
> > API is still minimal. Currently we have another two functions
> > alloc/free buffer (needed for send).
>
> The internal kernel API changes all the time, we are not bound to it
> beyond ensuring we update the internal users when we change it. I
> prefer not to introduce complexity until we have to.
>
> buffer = dell_smbios_get_buffer();
> buffer->input[0] = token->location;
> buffer->input[1] = token->value;
> dell_smbios_send_request(1, 0);
> dell_smbios_release_buffer();
>
> The get_buffer and release_buffer also include the locking which is
> necessary for a shared buffer. If you eliminate the shared buffer,
> then you have to have a local buffer, which adds back code to create
> the buffer, initializize it, free it if it's dynamic, etc.
>
> So from that sense, Michał's API seems at least as concise as the
> alternative, and it introduces less change.

Ok. Then let's stay with it. I have not tested patches yet, but do not
see anything wrong. So go ahead you can add my Reviewed-by.

--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-09 20:21    [W:0.076 / U:1.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site