linux-kernel - Re: [Intel PMC TGPIO Driver 5/5] drivers/ptp: Add PMC Time-Aware GPIO Driver

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:   Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:52:54 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        christopher.s.hall@...el.com,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, sean.v.kelley@...el.com
Subject: Re: [Intel PMC TGPIO Driver 5/5] drivers/ptp: Add PMC Time-Aware
 GPIO Driver

On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 09:49:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 06:28:44PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 06:10:46PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > OK this looks like some GPIO registers...
> > > 
> > > Then there is a bunch of PTP stuff I don't understand I suppose
> > > related to the precision time protocol.
> > 
> > Hi Linus
> > 
> > I understand your confusion. The first time this was posted to netdev,
> > i asked it to be renamed because it has very little to do with GPIO
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20190719132021.GC24930@lunn.ch/
> 
> And besides that I didn't see it in internal review list, so, it needs to be
> very carefully reviewed. I already saw some not good formatted and questionable
> code.

Just to have some evidences.

The entire function
  static const plat_acpi_resource *find_plat_acpi_resource (struct platform_device *pdev, int *n_pins)
brings a lot of questions.

  MODULE_ALIAS("acpi*:INTC1021:*");
What is this?!

And so on...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko