netdev - Re: [PATCH RFT 1/2] phylib: add device reset GPIO support

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, 26 May 2016 11:00:55 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	Paweł Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT 1/2] phylib: add device reset GPIO support

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:

> [added Linus Walleij to Cc, there is a question for you/him below]
(...)
>> +void mdio_device_reset(struct mdio_device *mdiodev, int value)
>> +{
>> +     if (mdiodev->reset)
>> +             gpiod_set_value(mdiodev->reset, value);
>
> Before v4.6-rc1~108^2~91 it was not necessary to check for the first
> parameter being non-NULL before calling gpiod_set_value. Linus, did you
> change this on purpose?

Not really. And AFAICT it is still not necessary: what changed is that
an error message will be printed by VALIDATE_DESC() if you do that.
And that is proper I guess? I think it's sloppy code to randomly pass in
NULL to a call and just expect it to bail out, it seems more like
exercising the error path than something you'd normally rely on.

Or am I getting things wrong?

Yours,
Linus Walleij