linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH can-next 1/2] can: tcan4x5x: Rename parse

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:06:23 -0500
From:   Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To:     <mkl@...gutronix.de>, <wg@...ndegger.com>
CC:     <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH can-next 1/2] can: tcan4x5x: Rename parse_config
 function

Mark and Wolfgang

On 4/28/20 2:48 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
> Marc
>
> On 2/27/20 12:38 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Rename the tcan4x5x_parse_config function to tcan4x5x_get_gpios since
>> the function retrieves the gpio configurations from the firmware.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c 
>> b/drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c
>> index 9821babef55e..37d53ecc560b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x.c
>> @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ static int tcan4x5x_disable_state(struct 
>> m_can_classdev *cdev)
>>                     TCAN4X5X_DISABLE_INH_MSK, 0x01);
>>   }
>>   -static int tcan4x5x_parse_config(struct m_can_classdev *cdev)
>> +static int tcan4x5x_get_gpios(struct m_can_classdev *cdev)
>>   {
>>       struct tcan4x5x_priv *tcan4x5x = cdev->device_data;
>>       int ret;
>> @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ static int tcan4x5x_can_probe(struct spi_device 
>> *spi)
>>       if (ret)
>>           return ret;
>>   -    ret = tcan4x5x_parse_config(mcan_class);
>> +    ret = tcan4x5x_get_gpios(mcan_class);
>>       if (ret)
>>           goto out_power;
>
> I noticed this series never was reviewed and applied.  They are still 
> applicable and were requested changes.
>
Did you need me to combine all the patches on a m_can-next branch and 
submit a PR after test?

There are quite a few patches out there and they all seem relevant.

Dan


> Dan
>