linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: simple-card: simplify code

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: <20140114180005.GT15567@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:00:05 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@...e.fr>
Cc:	lgirdwood@...il.com, Xiubo Li <Li.Xiubo@...escale.com>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: simple-card: simplify code

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:12:58PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Please send this as a patch series to aid review, one patch doing four
> > different changes is much harder to review.

> As there are other bugs to fix, I may put back the 'of_device_is_available',
> but there are not 3 different changes: I just explain the visible
> effects of the patch. The patch itself is, as the subject says,
> 'simplify code', that is, 'have a simpler code with no change in the
> logic'.

There's several different simplifications going on here, or at least it
sounded that way.  For example creating a private data struct doesn't
seem obviously related to deleting unused fields from the platform data.
The larger a change is the more benefit there is from a series of
mechanical individual updates rather than several at once.

> > >  		ret = asoc_simple_card_sub_parse_of(np,
> > > -						  &info->cpu_dai,
> > > -						  of_cpu);
> > > +						  &priv->cpu_dai,
> > > +					  (struct device_node **)
> > > +						  &dai_link->cpu_of_node,
> > > +						  &dai_link->cpu_dai_name);

> > What's this cast here for?  That code doesn't look at all safe.

> dai_link->cpu_of_node is 'const struct device_node *' and both
> of_clk_get() and of_node_put() want 'struct device_node *'. So, there
> must be a cast somewhere.

> Do you prefer I put these ones when calling the 'of_xx' functions?

No, I think this stuff needs to actually be type safe with no dodgy
casts.  I'm not sure why we're doing an of_node_put(), for the
of_clk_get() it's not immediately obvious why it's not taking a const
clk.  Or perhaps the pointer shouldn't be stored as const.

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