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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51F89B59.6010708@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:06:33 -0500
From:	Joel Fernandes <joelf@...com>
To:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...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 07/30/2013 11:29 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> 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.>

Ok, sure. I will go ahead and return from the if block.

Thanks,

-Joel


--
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/