linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] irqchip/aspeed-i2c-ic: Add I2C IRQ controller for Aspeed

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: <CAFd5g44FJyVHU1fss0zy1OrQVUQKVo27KQCS2GaRi7=JS-Gzmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:29:07 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
        Kachalov Anton <mouse@...c.ru>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] irqchip/aspeed-i2c-ic: Add I2C IRQ controller for Aspeed

>> +     i2c_ic->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(
>> +                     node, ASPEED_I2C_IC_NUM_BUS,
>> +                     &aspeed_i2c_ic_irq_domain_ops, NULL);
>
> nit: can you have at least one argument following the function name?
> Even if checkpatch shouts out you?

Makes no difference to me.

>
>> +     if (!i2c_ic->irq_domain)
>> +             return -ENOMEM;
>
> All these error paths are leaking the initial memory allocation.

Whoops, forgot I am not using devm_*.

>
>> +
>> +     i2c_ic->irq_domain->name = "aspeed-i2c-domain";
>> +
>> +     irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(i2c_ic->parent_irq,
>> +                                      aspeed_i2c_ic_irq_handler, i2c_ic);
>> +
>> +     pr_info("i2c controller registered, irq %d\n", i2c_ic->parent_irq);
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ast2400_i2c_ic, "aspeed,ast2400-i2c-ic", aspeed_i2c_ic_of_init);
>> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ast2500_i2c_ic, "aspeed,ast2500-i2c-ic", aspeed_i2c_ic_of_init);
>>
>
> Once you've fixed the trivial bug above, this should be good to go.
> What's the merging strategy? Can I take the initial two patches, and let
> someone else deal with the rest? Or do you want the whole series to be
> kept together?

I think it makes most sense to keep it together and let Wolfram merge the
whole thing since the I2C patches won't work without this and I would not
want to make the merging process unnecessarily complicated.