linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal: imx: fix for dependency on cpu-freq

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, 20 Nov 2018 16:18:43 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     anson.huang@....com
Cc:     Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-imx@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: imx: fix for dependency on cpu-freq

While I am aligned with the fact that we need to carry this code for backward
compatibility, there are few things I would suggest to improve.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com> wrote:
>  static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> @@ -743,6 +745,7 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         regmap_write(map, data->socdata->sensor_ctrl + REG_SET,
>                      data->socdata->power_down_mask);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
>         data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
>         if (!data->policy) {
>                 pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
> @@ -755,6 +758,7 @@ static int imx_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                         "failed to register cpufreq cooling device: %d\n", ret);
>                 return ret;
>         }
> +#endif
>
>         data->thermal_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>         if (IS_ERR(data->thermal_clk)) {

You missed the error handling code which unregisters cooling/cpufreq stuff.

And it would be better to write things in a somewhat better way, like this:

#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ

static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(...)
{
        ... current function body
}

static void imx_thermal_unregister_legacy_cooling(...)
{
        new routine body to unregister things
}

#else
static inline  int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(...)
{
        return 0;
}

static void imx_thermal_unregister_legacy_cooling(...) { }

#endif


And then you can get rid of ifdef hackery in the middle of probe().