| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:41:37 -0700
From: sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, wharms@....de
Cc: dan.carpenter@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] intel-mid: Fix sfi get_platform_data() return
value issues
Thanks for the review Andy. Please check my comments inline.
On 09/08/2016 05:51 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:05 -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> According to the intel_mid_sfi_get_pdata() function definition,
> "function" is implied, remove the word.
Will be fixed in next version.
>
>> get_platform_data() function
> Ditto.
Same as above.
>
>> should returns NULL on no platform
> returns -> return
Same as above.
>
>> data scenario and return ERR_PTR on platform data initialization
>> failures. But current device platform initialization code does not
>> follow this requirement. This patch fixes the return values issues
>> in various sfi device libs code.
> sfi -> SFI
Same as above.
>
>
> Looking into patch I would consider to split it to series:
>
> 1. Rewrite GPIO expander logic to cover dynamic allocation. You have to
> check how it supposed to be in GPIO framework. IIRC gpio_base = -1
I checked the expander driver logic. As long as we return platform data
as NULL, it by default falls back to dynamic allocation. So I think
returning NULL on gpio_base == -1 is itself enough to support the
dynamic allocation.
file: a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
755 pdata = dev_get_platdata(&client->dev);
756 if (pdata) {
757 irq_base = pdata->irq_base;
758 chip->gpio_start = pdata->gpio_base;
759 invert = pdata->invert;
760 chip->names = pdata->names;
761 } else {
762 chip->gpio_start = -1;
763 irq_base = 0;
764 }
> (perhaps a defined constant) will do the trick.
> 2. Fix the actual return codes (maybe with changes to sfi.c).
> 3. Fix and add error messages.
I can split the patch into two. One for return code fix and another for
adding error messages.
> 4+ (in the future) Address code duplication
Agreed.
>
>> --- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_max7315.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_max7315.c
>> @@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ static void __init *max7315_platform_data(void
>> *info)
>> char intr_pin_name[SFI_NAME_LEN + 1];
>>
>> if (nr == MAX7315_NUM) {
>> - pr_err("too many max7315s, we only support %d\n",
>> - MAX7315_NUM);
>> - return NULL;
>> + pr_err("%s: too many max7315s, we only support %d\n",
>> + __func__, MAX7315_NUM);
> Use the same as for PCAL9555A:
>
> pr_err("%s: Too many instances, only %d supported\n",
Will be fixed in next version.
>
>> @@ -48,8 +48,12 @@ static void __init *max7315_platform_data(void
>> *info)
>> gpio_base = get_gpio_by_name(base_pin_name);
>> intr = get_gpio_by_name(intr_pin_name);
>>
>> - if (gpio_base < 0)
>> + if (gpio_base < 0) {
>> + pr_err("%s: Unknown GPIO base number, falling back
>> to"
>> + "dynamic allocation\n", __func__);
> Don't split literals.
>
> pr_err("...long literal...\n",
> args...);
>
> No. This not just the message you show and abort initialization, in case
> of dynamic allocation you have to proceed initialization.
How about we go with following warning message. Since using dynamic gpio
allocation is not an error, I think a warning message is more than
enough here. Also , I don't see any value in adding "Unknown gpio base
number" to the error message. So we can remove it to fit the log message
into one line.
+ if (gpio_base == -1) {
+ pr_warn("%s: falling back to dynamic gpio allocation\n",
+ __func__);
>
>> index ee22864..4b33aab 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_mpu3050.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_mpu3050.c
>> @@ -14,15 +14,21 @@
>>
>> i2c_info->irq = intr + INTEL_MID_IRQ_OFFSET;
>> +
>> return NULL;
> This change doesn't belong to the series.
Submitting a separate patch to fix this this single style issue seems to
be over kill. Will it be ok if I add this to my debug message patch ?
>
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/intel-
>> mid/device_libs/platform_pcal9555a.c b/arch/x86/platform/intel-
>> mid/device_libs/platform_pcal9555a.c
>> index 429a941..190b2d2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_pcal9555a.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_pcal9555a.c
>> @@ -41,13 +41,16 @@ static void __init *pcal9555a_platform_data(void
>> *info)
>> intr = get_gpio_by_name(intr_pin_name);
>>
>> /* Check if the SFI record valid */
>> - if (gpio_base == -1)
>> + if (gpio_base == -1) {
>> + pr_err("%s: Unknown GPIO base number, falling back to
>> dynamic"
>> + "allocation\n", __func__);
>> return NULL;
> Same comment as above for gpio_base.
Will be fixed in next version.
>
>> --- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_tca6416.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_tca6416.c
>> @@ -34,8 +34,12 @@ static void *tca6416_platform_data(void *info)
>> gpio_base = get_gpio_by_name(base_pin_name);
>> intr = get_gpio_by_name(intr_pin_name);
>>
>> - if (gpio_base < 0)
>> + if (gpio_base < 0) {
>> + pr_err("%s: Unknown GPIO base number, falling back to
>> dynamic"
>> + "allocation\n", __func__);
> Ditto.
>
>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Android kernel developer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists