linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 04/25] spi: gpio: Implement LSB First bitbang support

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:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:08:24 +0100
From:   Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-realtek-soc@...ts.infradead.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/25] spi: gpio: Implement LSB First bitbang support

Am 12.12.19 um 18:19 schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:14:59PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 12.12.19 um 09:40 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 4:41 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de> wrote:
>>>> Add support for slave DT property spi-lsb-first, i.e., SPI_LSB_FIRST mode.
> 
>>>> Duplicate the inline helpers bitbang_txrx_be_cpha{0,1} as LE versions.
>>>> Make checkpatch.pl happy by changing "unsigned" to "unsigned int".
> 
> Separate patch for this?

For the checkpatch cleanup? Or helpers preparation vs. spi-gpio.c usage?

>> So from that angle I don't see a better way than either duplicating the
>> functions or using some macro magic to #include the header twice. If we
>> wanted to go down that path, we could probably de-duplicate the existing
>> two functions, too, but I was trying to err on the cautious side, since
>> I don't have setups to test all four code paths myself (and a ton of
>> more relevant but less fun patches to flush out ;)).
> 
> Yeah, I don't think there's any great options here with the potential
> performance issues - probably the nicest thing would be to autogenerate
> lots of variants but I think that's far more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe add another code comment to revisit that idea later then?

Thanks,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)