linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to spmi_pmic

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:58:21 +0530
From:   kgunda@...eaurora.org
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...eaurora.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        adharmap@...cinc.com, aghayal@....qualcomm.com,
        linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to
 spmi_pmic_arb

On 2017-06-02 23:59, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 06/01, kgunda@...eaurora.org wrote:
>> >>@@ -209,23 +210,24 @@ static void pa_read_data(struct
>> >>spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)
>> >>  * @buf:	buffer to write. length must be bc + 1.
>> >>  */
>> >> static void
>> >>-pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, const u8 *buf, u32
>> >>reg, u8 bc)
>> >>+pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, const u8 *buf, u32 reg,
>> >>u8 bc)
>> >> {
>> >> 	u32 data = 0;
>> >>+
>> >> 	memcpy(&data, buf, (bc & 3) + 1);
>> >>-	__raw_writel(data, dev->wr_base + reg);
>> >>+	pmic_arb_base_write(pa, reg, data);
>> >
>> >This is an unrelated change. Not sure what's going on with this
>> >diff but we most likely want to keep the __raw_writel() here. See
>> >how renames introduce bugs and why we don't value them?
>> >
>> Actually pmic_arb_base_write has the writel_relaxed inside it.
>> that's why we removed the __raw_writel to use the common function.
>> Anyways, we drop the renaming patch from this patch series.
> 
> __raw_writel() is there on purpose because we're reading bytes at
> a time and the CPU could be big-endian or little-endian.
> readl_relaxed() would do a byte swap which we don't want.
ok. Thanks for clarifying it. We do not remove the __raw_writel.