linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v6 1/7] slimbus: Device management on SLIMbus

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]

Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:06:54 +0200
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        sdharia@...eaurora.org, bp@...e.de, poeschel@...onage.de,
        treding@...dia.com, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        andreas.noever@...il.com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
        mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, daniel@...ll.ch, jkosina@...e.cz,
        sharon.dvir1@...l.huji.ac.il, joe@...ches.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        james.hogan@...tec.com, michael.opdenacker@...e-electrons.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kheitke@...ience.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [Patch v6 1/7] slimbus: Device management on SLIMbus

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:51:30PM +0200, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org wrote:

> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/slimbus/bus.txt |  57 ++
>  Documentation/slimbus/summary                     | 109 ++++

This is a 40k patch which is a bit offputting for review.  Splitting the
docs out would help this a bit.

> +static int slim_boot_child(struct device *dev, void *unused)
> +{
> +	struct slim_driver *sbdrv;
> +	struct slim_device *sbdev = to_slim_device(dev);
> +
> +	if (sbdev && sbdev->dev.driver) {
> +		sbdrv = to_slim_driver(sbdev->dev.driver);
> +		if (sbdrv->boot_device)
> +			sbdrv->boot_device(sbdev);
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}

We silently don't boot a device if it hasn't got a driver - is that the
right thing?  It feels like the silencing should be in the calling
function.

> +ret_assigned_laddr:
> +	mutex_unlock(&ctrl->m_ctrl);
> +	if (exists || ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	dev_info(&ctrl->dev, "setting slimbus l-addr:%x, ea:%x,%x,%x,%x\n",
> +		*laddr, e_addr->manf_id, e_addr->prod_code,
> +		e_addr->dev_index, e_addr->instance);

dev_dbg()?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)