linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: add stub for of_n_addr

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: <20170327055454.c6kj4keeudqn4bps@builder>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:54:54 +0200
From:   Tobias Regnery <tobias.regnery@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, horms@...ge.net.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: add stub for of_n_addr_cells

On 24.03.17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Tobias Regnery
> <tobias.regnery@...il.com> wrote:
> > With CONFIG_OF=n and CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST=y the rcar pci-e driver fails to
> > build on arm:
> >
> > drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c: In function 'pci_dma_range_parser_init':
> > drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c:1035:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'of_n_addr_cells' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >   parser->pna = of_n_addr_cells(node);
> >                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Fix this by adding an inline stub for of_n_addr_cells
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tobias Regnery <tobias.regnery@...il.com>
> > ---
> > This is against next-20140324
> >
> >  include/linux/of.h | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> > index 21e6323de0f3..9978c918222e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/of.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> > @@ -710,6 +710,11 @@ static inline struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu,
> >         return NULL;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline int of_n_addr_cells(struct device_node *np)
> > +{
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> This looks good, but we should also do the same thing for of_n_size_cells().
> 
> I think I sent something like this a few years ago, but never resubmitted it
> when it was ignored at first.
> 
>         Arnd

This seems sensible, I can send an updated patch with this change or I can 
send it as a separate patch, whatever the maintainers prefer.

--
Tobias