linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] add TC G210 pci driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:17:34 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
Cc:	vinholikatti@...il.com, julian.calaby@...il.com,
	akinobu.mita@...il.com, hch@...radead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
	gbroner@...eaurora.org, subhashj@...eaurora.org,
	CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] add TC G210 pci driver

On Friday 04 March 2016 17:22:19 Joao Pinto wrote:
> This patch adds a glue pci driver for the Synopsys G210 Test Chip.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>

Mostly ok, just a few suggestions:

> +
> +/* Test Chip type expected values */
> +#define TC_G210_20BIT 20
> +#define TC_G210_40BIT 40
> +#define TC_G210_DEFAULTBIT 40
> +
> +static int tc_type = TC_G210_DEFAULTBIT;
> +module_param(tc_type, int, 0);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(tc_type, "Test Chip Type (20 = 20-bit, 40 = 40-bit)");
>

What is the effect of setting the wrong one here? I was thinking
it would be best to have the default be 'invalid' and then return
an error from the probe() function when you neither value is
set.

> +
> +	/* Check Test Chip type and set the specific setup routine */
> +	if (tc_type == TC_G210_20BIT) {
> +		tc_dwc_g210_pci_hba_vops.custom_phy_initialization =
> +						tc_dwc_g210_config_20_bit;
> +	} else if (tc_type == TC_G210_40BIT) {
> +		tc_dwc_g210_pci_hba_vops.custom_phy_initialization =
> +						tc_dwc_g210_config_40_bit;
> +	}

As for the platform driver, I would define two separate structures here,
and then mark the operations as 'const'.

> +static const struct pci_device_id tc_dwc_g210_pci_tbl[] = {
> +	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_SYNOPSYS, 0xB101, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0 },
> +	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_SYNOPSYS, 0xB102, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0 },
> +	{ }	/* terminate list */
> +};

Is there any difference between these two IDs?

	Arnd