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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:32:15 +0800
From:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.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

2012/6/26 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>:
> 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.
I've no idea why gmail do the odd word wrapping...

>
>> 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.
I will send the patch with better changelog.

Regards,
Axel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ