linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: of: mark a whole array of regs as reserved

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: <20200415081035.GB1141@ninjato>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:10:35 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran@...uared.org.uk>,
        Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
        Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: of: mark a whole array of regs as
 reserved


> > -int of_i2c_get_board_info(struct device_node *node, struct i2c_board_info *info)
> > +static void of_i2c_decode_board_info(struct device_node *node, u32 addr,
> > +				     bool first_addr, struct i2c_board_info *info)
> 
> While I confirm the patch looks generally OK, let me add the name of
> this function is not quite self-explaining. The difference between "get"
> and "decode" has nothing to do with the different actions these
> functions do, i.e. the new function gets (or: decodes) info about  a
> single address that is passed, the old "get" function gets the info for
> the first address.
>
> I'd suggest the new function be named of_i2c_get_board_info_one_addr or
> similar. Not super nice, a bit long, but self-explanatory.

I view them a bit differently, I think. of_i2c_decode_board_info() is a
helper function to retrieve "some" addr. It is used by
of_i2c_get_board_info() which has the special case of getting the first
address. of_i2c_register_device() is the other user with the case of
getting each address specified. So, I wouldn't put this helper function
on the same level as the users of this helper.

Yet, no strong opinion here, I will think about it...


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)