linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: EDMA: Fix clearing of unused list for DT DMA resources

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: <51F7E9D0.1080107@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:59:04 +0530
From:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:	<joelf@...com>
CC:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Benoit Cousson <benoit.cousson@...aro.org>,
	Balaji TK <balajitk@...com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>,
	Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@...flow.co.uk>,
	Linux OMAP List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pantel Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: EDMA: Fix clearing of unused list for DT DMA
 resources

On 7/30/2013 9:17 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:

>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>> index a432e6c..765d578 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/common/edma.c

>>> +	} else {
>>> +		for (; i < pdev->num_resources; i++) {
>>> +			if ((pdev->resource[i].flags & IORESOURCE_DMA) &&
>>> +			    (int)pdev->resource[i].start >= 0) {
>>> +				ctlr = EDMA_CTLR(pdev->resource[i].start);
>>> +				clear_bit(EDMA_CHAN_SLOT(
>>> +					  pdev->resource[i].start),
>>> +					  edma_cc[ctlr]->edma_unused);
>>> +			}
>>
>> So there is very little in common between OF and non-OF versions of this
>> function. Why not have two different versions of this function for the
>> two cases? The OF version can reside under the CONFIG_OF conditional
>> already in use in the file. This will also save you the ugly line breaks
>> you had to resort to due to too deep indentation.
> 
> Actually those line breaks are not necessary and wouldn't result in
> compilation errors. I was planning to drop them. I'll go ahead and split
> it out anyway, now that also the OF version of the function is going to
> be bit longer if we use the of_parse functions.
> 
> Thanks for your review,

It turns out, I gave a bad idea. What I suggested will break the case of
non-DT boot with CONFIG_OF enabled. So what you had was fine. May be
just return from "if (dev->of_node)" so you don't need to have an else
block and can save on the indentation.

Thanks,
Sekhar
--
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/