linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

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: <1497046994.26258.9.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 09 Jun 2017 15:23:14 -0700
From:   Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        "edubezval@...il.com" <edubezval@...il.com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: int340x: check for sensor when PTYP is missing

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 13:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > For INT3403 sensor PTYP field is mandatory. But some platforms
> > didn't
> > have this field for sensors. This cause load failure for int3403
> > driver.
> > 
> > This change checks for the presence of _TMP method and if present,
> > then
> > treats this device as a sensor.
> > 
> >         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",
> >                                        NULL, &priv->type);
> >         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > -               result = -EINVAL;
> > -               goto err;
> > 
> > +               unsigned long long tmp;
> You may use &priv->type as temporary variable, though I would go
> other
> way around:
> declare tmp for function, then
> 
>     unsigned long long tmp;
> ...
>     status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "PTYP",  NULL,
> &tmp);
>     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>         status = acpi_evaluate_integer(priv->adev->handle, "_TMP",
> NULL, &tmp);
>         if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>             result = -EINVAL;
>             goto err;
>         }
>         tmp = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
>     }
>     priv->type = tmp;
> 
So what are we saving by doing this way?

Thanks,
Srinivas

> > 
> > +               } else {
> This is redundant.
> 
> > 
> > +                       priv->type = INT3403_TYPE_SENSOR;
> > +               }
> >         }