linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/13] media: rc: sunxi: Add RXSTA bits definition

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:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 22:00:20 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To:     Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/13] media: rc: sunxi: Add RXSTA bits definition

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:44:06PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 11:51, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote:
> > > We are using RXINT bits definition when looking at RXSTA register.
> > >
> > > These bits are equal but it's not really proper.
> > >
> > > Introduce the RXSTA bits and use them to have coherency.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/media/rc/sunxi-cir.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/sunxi-cir.c b/drivers/media/rc/sunxi-cir.c
> > > index 0504ebfc831f..572bd2257d35 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/rc/sunxi-cir.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/rc/sunxi-cir.c
> > > @@ -48,11 +48,11 @@
> > >
> > >  /* Rx Interrupt Enable */
> > >  #define SUNXI_IR_RXINT_REG    0x2C
> > > -/* Rx FIFO Overflow */
> > > +/* Rx FIFO Overflow Interrupt Enable */
> > >  #define REG_RXINT_ROI_EN             BIT(0)
> > > -/* Rx Packet End */
> > > +/* Rx Packet End Interrupt Enable */
> > >  #define REG_RXINT_RPEI_EN            BIT(1)
> > > -/* Rx FIFO Data Available */
> > > +/* Rx FIFO Data Available Interrupt Enable */
> > >  #define REG_RXINT_RAI_EN             BIT(4)
> > >
> > >  /* Rx FIFO available byte level */
> > > @@ -60,6 +60,12 @@
> > >
> > >  /* Rx Interrupt Status */
> > >  #define SUNXI_IR_RXSTA_REG    0x30
> > > +/* Rx FIFO Overflow */
> > > +#define REG_RXSTA_ROI                        BIT(0)
> > > +/* Rx Packet End */
> > > +#define REG_RXSTA_RPE                        BIT(1)
> > > +/* Rx FIFO Data Available */
> > > +#define REG_RXSTA_RA                 BIT(4)
> >
> > I'm fine with it on principle, but if the consistency needs to be
> > maintained then we could just reuse the above defines
>
> There is no comment why we can reuse them, they can also be some wrong
> case for example the RXINT_DRQ_EN bit is not present in RXSTA and same
> for STAT bit present in RXSTA and not present in RXINT.
>
> I have discover and read this code a month ago and this logic is
> really not obvious nor explain.
>
> Maybe this hack could be done when we will introduce a quirks, but for
> the moment I really think that it's more proper and readable to
> introduce them properly.

I don't think we understood each other :)

I was talking about having something like

#define REG_RXSTA_ROI  REG_RXINT_ROI_EN

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com