linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] soundwire: qcom: add support to missing transport params

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:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:29:31 -0600
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        vkoul@...nel.org
Cc:     sanyog.r.kale@...el.com, yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] soundwire: qcom: add support to missing transport
 params


>>>       for (i = 0; i < nports; i++) {
>>>           ctrl->pconfig[i].si = si[i];
>>>           ctrl->pconfig[i].off1 = off1[i];
>>>           ctrl->pconfig[i].off2 = off2[i];
>>>           ctrl->pconfig[i].bp_mode = bp_mode[i];
>>> +        ctrl->pconfig[i].hstart = hstart[i];
>>> +        ctrl->pconfig[i].hstop = hstop[i];
>>> +        ctrl->pconfig[i].word_length = word_length[i];
>>> +        ctrl->pconfig[i].blk_group_count = blk_group_count[i];
>>> +        ctrl->pconfig[i].lane_control = lane_control[i];
>>>       }
>>
>> I don't get why you test the values parsed from DT before writing the 
>> registers. Why do test them here? if some values are incorrect it's 
>> much better to provide an error log instead of writing a partially 
>> valid setup to hardware, no?
> 
> from DT we pass parameters for all the master ports, however some of 
> these parameters are not really applicable for some of the ports! so the 
> way we handle this is by marking them as 0xFF which means these values 
> are not applicable for those ports! Having said that I think I should 
> probably redefine SWR_INVALID_PARAM to QCOM_SWR_PARAM_NA or something on 
> those lines!

Humm, do you have an example here? It's a bit odd to define DT 
properties that may or may not be valid. If this is intentional and 
desired, this should still be captured somehow, e.g. in the bindings 
documentation or in the code with a comment, no?