linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: arizona-micsupp: Fix choosing selector in arizona_micsupp_map

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]

Message-ID: <20120626095247.GK30406@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:52:47 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: arizona-micsupp: Fix choosing selector in
 arizona_micsupp_map_voltage

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 05:27:26PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:

Your mailer is doing something *really* odd with word wrapping, please
fix it.  It looks like it's just randomly wrapping lines rather than
flowing paragraphs.

> 2012/6/26 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>:

> > This is OK but I think we want to factor this out into the caller as
> > we're implementing this limits check in a lot of places.

> It seems most of the new code are calling list_voltage() in
> map_voltage to ensure
> the selected voltage are still in bound.
> for this case looks wrong to me.
> But in this  case, current actually set selector to
> ARIZONA_MICSUPP_MAX_SELECTOR in map_voltage() if
> min_uV >= 3300000. calling list_voltage() still returns valid voltage

Which we then immediately check against min_uV so as far as I can tell
we're fine here even with no code modifications.

> If min_uV is in the range of: 3250001~3269999,
> current code uses the equation: selector = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_uV -
> 1700000, 50000);
> Then selector will be 32.
> Then arizona_micsupp_list_voltage returns -EINVAL for this case.

OK, please submit a separate change for this.  It would sometimes help
if your changelog entries were clearer, while you do normally provide a
lot of detail but you often don't highlight which are the important
details or miss critical ones about why your change is important.  Your
original changelog for this makes it look like this is just a change
being made for taste reasons since it doesn't mention the error case.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)