linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] watchdog: sama5d4_wdt: addition of sam9x60 compatible watchdog

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]

Message-ID: <20191107164104.GA7693@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:41:04 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com
Cc:     wim@...ux-watchdog.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] watchdog: sama5d4_wdt: addition of sam9x60
 compatible watchdog

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:51:15PM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com wrote:
> 
> >>   
> >> -	if ((wdt->mr & AT91_WDT_WDFIEN) && irq) {
> >> +	irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(dev->of_node, 0);
> >> +	if (!irq) {
> >> +		dev_warn(dev, "failed to get IRQ from DT\n");
> >> +		wdt->need_irq = 0;
> > 
> > Does it make sense to ignore that ?
> 
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> Can you detail what exactly is ignored ?
> 
The missing interrupt.

> >> +static struct sama5d4_wdt_data sama5d4_config;
> >> +
> >> +static struct sama5d4_wdt_data sam9x60_config = {
> >> +	.sam9x60_support = 1,
> >> +};
> > 
> > Unless there is reason to believe that there will be other
> > configuration data, please just assign the flag value directly
> > to .data and add a variable to struct sama5d4_wdt to access it.
> > Please make that variable a bool.
> 
> There will be more configuration data for future products, but not at 
> this moment. Do the change or keep it this way ?
> 
If not as part of this series, it is better to just assign
the flag directly. If there are changes coming at a later time
which indeed need a structure (with more than one object in it),
that structure can be added at that time.

Guenter