linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 1/5] venus: firmware: add routine to reset ARM9

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: <9d47c2d4-3a36-f05f-74c1-0d6e98d73314@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:41:26 +0300
From:   Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Vikash Garodia <vgarodia@...eaurora.org>, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        mchehab@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, acourbot@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/5] venus: firmware: add routine to reset ARM9

Hi Joe,

On 10/18/2018 04:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 +0300, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>> On 10/08/2018 04:32 PM, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>> Add routine to reset the ARM9 and brings it out of reset. Also
>>> abstract the Venus CPU state handling with a new function. This
>>> is in preparation to add PIL functionality in venus driver.
> []
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.h
> []
>>> @@ -129,6 +130,7 @@ struct venus_core {
>>>  	struct device *dev;
>>>  	struct device *dev_dec;
>>>  	struct device *dev_enc;
>>> +	bool use_tz;
>>
>> could you make it unsigned? For more info please run checkpatch --strict.
>>
>> I know that we have structure members of type bool already - that should
>> be fixed with follow-up patches, I guess.
> 
> That's probably not necessary.
> 
> I personally have no issue with bool struct members that
> are only used on a transitory basis and not used by hardware
> or shared between multiple cpus with different hardware
> alignment requirements.

Thanks for the clarification. I personally have preference to 'unsigned'
for such flag, but let Hans decide which one to take.

> 
> Nothing in this struct is saved or shared.
> 
> Perhaps the checkpatch message should be expanded to
> enumerate when bool use in a struct is acceptable.
> 

It'd be good to explain more, because it sounds imperative to every
structure.

-- 
regards,
Stan