linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/17] PCI: dwc: dra7xx: Add ifdefs for host/ep specific code

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:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 22:38:34 +0100
From:   Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com>
To:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:     <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/17] PCI: dwc: dra7xx: Add ifdefs for host/ep
 specific code

>>>  
>>>  static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  {
>>> @@ -681,6 +697,7 @@ static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  		dra7xx->link_gen = 2;
>>>  
>>>  	switch (mode) {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DRA7XX_HOST
>>>  	case DW_PCIE_RC_TYPE:
>>>  		dra7xx_pcie_writel(dra7xx, PCIECTRL_TI_CONF_DEVICE_TYPE,
>>>  				   DEVICE_TYPE_RC);
>>> @@ -688,6 +705,8 @@ static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  		if (ret < 0)
>>>  			goto err_gpio;
>>>  		break;
>>> +#endif
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DRA7XX_EP
>>>  	case DW_PCIE_EP_TYPE:
>>>  		dra7xx_pcie_writel(dra7xx, PCIECTRL_TI_CONF_DEVICE_TYPE,
>>>  				   DEVICE_TYPE_EP);
>>> @@ -700,6 +719,7 @@ static int __init dra7xx_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  		if (ret < 0)
>>>  			goto err_gpio;
>>>  		break;
>>> +#endif
> 
> Actually, these ifdefs has to stay, otherwise we get build warnings, since we
> are calling functions that aren't defined (dra7xx_pcie_ep_unaligned_memaccess,
> dra7xx_add_pcie_ep, dra7xx_add_pcie_port).
> We could add dummy implementations for these inside an #else block following
> the ifdef blocks. However, I think that adding dummy implementations in the
> #else block is uglier and more verbose than keeping the ifdefs around the
> two cases.
> 

..however, if you prefer dummy implementations inside the #else blocks,
I will of course do that.


Regards,
Niklas