[PATCH 2/5] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Add i.MX95 CPU Protocol

[Sudeep Holla]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 03:41:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:22:18PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > > +struct scmi_msg_imx_cpu_attributes_out {
> > > > +	__le32 attributes;
> > > > +#define	CPU_MAX_NAME	16
> > > > +	u8 name[CPU_MAX_NAME];
> > >
> > > char is always unsigned in the kernel these days but strings should
> > > still always be char.  Same thing in patch 1, there were a couple u8
> > > names.
> > >
> >
> > While it is certainly true that char is the way to go for strings and, as
> > such, it is used elsewhere to hold the resource names across all SCMI
> > protocols, in this context it is a field of structure representing
> > exactly the layout of message reply coming from the server, and defined
> > in the SCMI spec as a uint8 array, so, we have generally preferred to
> > used u8 to represent such fixed size array all across the SCMI stack
> > protocols implementation....
> >
> > .... not saying that it is necessarily completelt right, but that is the
> > reason we are guilty :D
>
> Fine.  I don't have intense emotions about this.
>
> It does slightly bother me when we assume that the SCMI server NUL
> terminates these when we do things like:
>
> 	dev_info(ph->dev, "i.MX CPU: name: %s\n", out->name);
>

I was about to reply earlier and got distracted. This makes it even better.
I agree with Cristian that we have defined it as u8 when referring to the
payload from the SCMI platform/server. But it should be used only to extract
information from the response payload and copied to OSPM's own buffer before
accessing it like the above dev_info example.

In short, I agree with you Dan that it shouldn't be used in OS like above.
I haven't looked at the implementation patches(just looked at the doc 3/5),
but if they need such logging, they need to copy it to some buffer in the
kernel.

--
Regards,
Sudeep