linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] hwrng: msm

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, 18 Jun 2018 22:24:27 +0530
From:   Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] hwrng: msm - Move hwrng to a table

On 18-06-18, 08:58, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Vinod Koul (2018-06-18 07:12:57)
> > @@ -127,6 +125,13 @@ static void msm_rng_cleanup(struct hwrng *hwrng)
> >         msm_rng_enable(hwrng, 0);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static struct hwrng msm_rng = {
> > +       .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> > +       .init = msm_rng_init,
> > +       .cleanup = msm_rng_cleanup,
> > +       .read = msm_rng_read,
> > +};
> > +
> >  static int msm_rng_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >         struct resource *res;
> > @@ -148,12 +153,10 @@ static int msm_rng_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >         if (IS_ERR(rng->clk))
> >                 return PTR_ERR(rng->clk);
> >  
> > -       rng->hwrng.name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> > -       rng->hwrng.init = msm_rng_init,
> > -       rng->hwrng.cleanup = msm_rng_cleanup,
> 
> Wouldn't it be a lot easier to skip assigning the init and cleanup
> functions on v2 devices with an if statement? It would be smaller size
> wise too because then we don't have two structs for v1 and v2 hwrngs.
> Plus the patch would be smaller overall because we would do everything
> else pretty much the same besides the if condition in probe.

Yes it would be an alternate approach and would involve lesser code
change.

My personal preference is table based init rather open coding and it
makes adding future revs easier, but said that I can change this...

-- 
~Vinod