linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/31] i2c: tegra: Factor out runtime PM and hardware initialization

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:   Sun, 6 Sep 2020 00:51:53 +0200
From:   Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/31] i2c: tegra: Factor out runtime PM and hardware
 initialization

On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:24:14AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 06.09.2020 01:10, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 11:41:31PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> Factor out runtime PM and hardware initialization into separate function
> >> in order have a cleaner error unwinding in the probe function.
> > [...]
> >> +	ret = tegra_i2c_init_runtime_pm_and_hardware(i2c_dev);
> > [...]
> > 
> > This one doesn't improve the code for me. The problems are: 1) putting two
> > unrelated parts in one function, 2) silently reordered initialization.
> 
> The hardware initialization depends on the resumed RPM and the rest of
> the probe function doesn't care about the RPM. I don't quite understand
> why you're saying that they are unrelated, could you please explain?
> 
> The DMA/RPM initialization is intentionally reordered in order to clean
> up the error handling, like the commit message says. To me it's a clear
> improvement :)

Ok, then wouldn't it be enough to just move this part in the probe()?
A sign of a problem for me is how much information you had to put in
the name of the new function.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław