Re: [PATCH v8 18/25] powerpc: Implement nvram sync ioctl
From: Finn Thain <hidden>
Date: 2018-12-30 07:25:48
Also in:
lkml
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
--- a/drivers/char/nvram.c +++ b/drivers/char/nvram.c@@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ #include <linux/mutex.h> #include <linux/pagemap.h> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC +#include <asm/nvram.h> +#include <asm/machdep.h> +#endif static DEFINE_MUTEX(nvram_mutex); static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(nvram_state_lock);@@ -331,6 +335,37 @@ static long nvram_misc_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, long ret = -ENOTTY; switch (cmd) { +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC + case OBSOLETE_PMAC_NVRAM_GET_OFFSET: + pr_warn("nvram: Using obsolete PMAC_NVRAM_GET_OFFSET ioctl\n"); + /* fall through */ + case IOC_NVRAM_GET_OFFSET: + ret = -EINVAL; +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PMACI think it would make be nicer here to keep the ppc bits in arch/ppc, and instead add a .ioctl() callback to nvram_ops.
The problem with having an nvram_ops.ioctl() method is the code in the !PPC branch. That code would get duplicated because it's needed by both X86 and M68K, to implement the checksum ioctls.
quoted
@@ -369,12 +405,14 @@ static int nvram_misc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) return -EBUSY; } +#ifndef CONFIG_PPC /* Prevent multiple writers if the set_checksum ioctl is implemented. */ if ((arch_nvram_ops.set_checksum != NULL) && (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) && (nvram_open_mode & NVRAM_WRITE)) { spin_unlock(&nvram_state_lock); return -EBUSY; } +#endifdiff --git a/include/linux/nvram.h b/include/linux/nvram.h index b7bfaec60a43..24a57675dba1 100644 --- a/include/linux/nvram.h +++ b/include/linux/nvram.h@@ -18,8 +18,12 @@ struct nvram_ops { unsigned char (*read_byte)(int); void (*write_byte)(unsigned char, int); ssize_t (*get_size)(void); +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC + long (*sync)(void); +#else long (*set_checksum)(void); long (*initialize)(void); +#endif };Maybe just leave all entries visible here, and avoid the above #ifdef checks.
The #ifdef isn't there just to save a few bytes, though it does do that. It's really meant to cause a build failure when I mess up somewhere. But I'm happy to change it if you can see a reason to do so (?) --
Arnd