lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 05/10] test_firmware: add support for firmware_request_platform
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:51:12PM +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@redhat.com>
> ---
> lib/test_firmware.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_firmware.c b/lib/test_firmware.c
> index 251213c872b5..9af00cfc8979 100644
> --- a/lib/test_firmware.c
> +++ b/lib/test_firmware.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> #include <linux/kthread.h>
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> +#include <linux/efi_embedded_fw.h>
>
> #define TEST_FIRMWARE_NAME "test-firmware.bin"
> #define TEST_FIRMWARE_NUM_REQS 4
> @@ -507,12 +508,76 @@ 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);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
> + release_firmware(test_firmware);
> + test_firmware = NULL;

Seems odd to have the above two lines here before the request, why not
after as noted below.

> + 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;

Here.

> +
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex);
> +
> + list_del(&fw.list);
> + kfree(name);
> +
> + return rc;
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(trigger_request_platform);
> +#endif
> +
> static DECLARE_COMPLETION(async_fw_done);
>
> static void trigger_async_request_cb(const struct firmware *fw, void *context)
> {
> test_firmware = fw;
> complete(&async_fw_done);
> +
> +
> +
> +
> +
> +
> +
> +
> +
> }

Ummm, new empty lines without any code added... did you forget
something? Please address this.

Luis

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-06 22:35    [W:0.089 / U:1.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site