linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller

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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:37:13 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
Cc:     <broonie@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        <Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>, <Cyrille.Pitchen@...rochip.com>,
        <bugalski.piotr@...il.com>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60
 qspi controller

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com> wrote:

> >   
> >> +	writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR);
> >> +}  
> > 
> > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the
> > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves
> > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in
> > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in
> > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()?
> >   
> 
> Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with
> these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again.

The cost of an indirect call is actually higher than an extra if/else
block. I'm not against paying this extra cost when implementations are
completely different, but that does not seem to be the case here.
Moreover, if you get rid of these hooks, you can also get rid of the
cfg struct.