linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] power: supply: sbs-battery: don't assume MANUFACTURER

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <10b558c4-9734-061f-c6ed-5b1288d1f23f@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:08:01 -0400
From:   Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:     Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Alexandru Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
        "Doug Anderson" <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] power: supply: sbs-battery: don't assume
 MANUFACTURER_DATA formats

On 6/1/2018 2:31 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 10:34:34AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 10:23:59AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>>>  drivers/power/supply/sbs-battery.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/sbs-battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/sbs-battery.c
>>> index 83d7b4115857..8dea63464a3f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/power/supply/sbs-battery.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/sbs-battery.c
> ...
> 
>>> @@ -315,6 +320,27 @@ static int sbs_status_correct(struct i2c_client *client, int *intval)
>>>  static int sbs_get_battery_presence_and_health(
>>>  	struct i2c_client *client, enum power_supply_property psp,
>>>  	union power_supply_propval *val)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	if (psp == POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_PRESENT) {
>>> +		/* Dummy command; if it succeeds, battery is present. */
>>> +		ret = sbs_read_word_data(client, sbs_data[REG_STATUS].addr);
>>> +		if (ret < 0)
>>> +			val->intval = 0; /* battery disconnected */
>>> +		else
>>> +			val->intval = 1; /* battery present */
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +	} else { /* POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_HEALTH */
>>
>> Static analyzers may complain that else after return is unnecessary.
> 
> I noticed (checkpatch complains) but decided I didn't care. It would be
> worse to promote the 'else' to top-level (things would look asymmetric).
> I suppose I could pull the 'return 0' out, but I'm not sure that would
> make the code any better.

I generally prefer to make checkpatch happy, so I would vote to move the
return outside of the if blocks as a minimal way of making it happy. In
general though,

Acked-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>

> 
>> Other than that
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>
>>> +		/* SBS spec doesn't have a general health command. */
>>> +		val->intval = POWER_SUPPLY_HEALTH_UNKNOWN;
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +	}
>>> +}
>>> +
> 
> Brian
> 


-- 
nvpublic