linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] at24: Fix I²C device selection for runtime PM

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:   Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:35:38 +0200
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, svendev@...x.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, divagar.mohandass@...el.com,
        brgl@...ev.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] at24: Fix I²C
 device selection for runtime PM

Hi Sven,

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:20:41AM -0500, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> Thank you, it fixes the issue on the multi-address eeprom that I have access to.
> 
> Tested-by: Sven Van Asbroeck on a 24AA16/24LC16B <svendev@...x.com>
> 
> One very minor remark:
> 
> +       struct device *dev = &at24->client[0]->dev;
> 
> It is sufficiently clear to others (and us a few months down the line)
> why we are
> using only client[0] for power management? Could it benefit from a separate
> function with comments?
> 
> struct device *dev = get_pm_device(at24);
> 
> static struct device *get_pm_device(struct at24_data *at24)
> {
>     /* explain why we use client[0] and not any of the dummies */
>     return &at24->client[0]->dev;
> }

There are no comments in assigning at24->client[0] either (or a helper
function). I think it should be rather evident when looking at the code
when you think about it. I certainly don't object adding a comment if you
insist or someone else thinks it's a good idea.

Thanks for testing!

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com