linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] firmware: raspberrypi: Introduce vl805 init routine

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: <b9b02ec0-0cb7-995a-40ce-ed38b78dfe46@gmx.net>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 21:06:22 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>
To:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>, helgaas@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, tim.gover@...pberrypi.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, RayJui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        ScottBranden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] firmware: raspberrypi: Introduce vl805 init
 routine

Hi Nicolas,

Am 04.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Nicolas Saenz Julienne:
> Hi Stefan, thanks for the review!
>
> On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 11:05 +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>> +	if (version)
>>> +		goto exit;
>>> +
>>> +	dev_addr = pdev->bus->number << 20 | PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn) << 15 |
>>> +		   PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn) << 12;
>>> +
>>> +	ret = rpi_firmware_property(fw, RPI_FIRMWARE_NOTIFY_XHCI_RESET,
>>> +				    &dev_addr, sizeof(dev_addr));
>>> +	/* Wait for vl805 to startup */
>>> +	udelay(200);
>> I know, it makes it harder to read but do we really want to wait
>> unnecessarily if rpi_firmware_property failed?
> Yes, I figured that it wouldn't hurt much at that faulty state, and you'll be
> waiting some extra 5s further down the line in quirk_usb_handoff_xhci().
>
> But if you feel it's more correct I'll be happy to change it.

no, i don't insist on that.

Best regards
Stefan