linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/8] usb: bdc: Small code cleanup

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:   Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:28:23 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Al Cooper' <al.cooper@...adcom.com>
CC:     Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@...atel-sbell.com.cn>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "open list:USB SUBSYSTEM" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com" 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/8] usb: bdc: Small code cleanup

From: Al Cooper
> Sent: 28 June 2017 15:56
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:47 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>       temp = bdc_readl(bdc->regs, BDC_BDCSC);
> >>       if ((temp & BDC_P64) &&
> >>                       !dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64))) {
> >> -             dev_dbg(bdc->dev, "Using 64-bit address\n");
> >> +             dev_dbg(dev, "Using 64-bit address\n");
> >>       } else {
> >> -             ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> >> +             ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> >
> > That just wrong...
> > Or was wrong before.
> 
> Why is this wrong?

It isn't obvious that &pdev->dev is bdc->dev and hence dev.

	David