[Nouveau] [PATCH v2 2/5] core: add support for secure boot

[Emil Velikov]

On 21 January 2016 at 12:13, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 10:09 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> On 18 January 2016 at 06:10, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot at nvidia.com> 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? :)
>
That or we have some secret WIP that we're haven't decided if it'll work out :-)

>>
>>> +       [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.
>
| always get confused which ones needed to setup their own dtors and
which ones didn't. Thanks !

-Emil