linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] PCI: keystone: Add PCI legacy interrupt support for AM654

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:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:14:02 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>
To:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] PCI: keystone: Add PCI legacy interrupt support for
 AM654

Hi Kishon,

[...]
> +	if (!legacy_irq_domain) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to add irq domain for legacy irqs\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
[...]

It would be "IRQ" and "IRQs" in the message above.

[...]
> -	ret = ks_pcie_config_legacy_irq(ks_pcie);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +	if (!ks_pcie->is_am6) {
> +		pp->bridge->child_ops = &ks_child_pcie_ops;
> +		ret = ks_pcie_config_legacy_irq(ks_pcie);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	} else {
> +		ret = ks_pcie_am654_config_legacy_irq(ks_pcie);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
[...]

What if we change this to the following:

	if (!ks_pcie->is_am6) {
		pp->bridge->child_ops = &ks_child_pcie_ops;
		ret = ks_pcie_config_legacy_irq(ks_pcie);
	} else {
		ret = ks_pcie_am654_config_legacy_irq(ks_pcie);
	}
	
	if (ret)
	  	return ret;

Not sure if this is something you would prefer, but it seems that either
of the functions can set "ret", so checking immediately after would be
the same as checking in either of the branches.  But, this is a matter
of style, so it would be up to you - not sure what do you prefer.

Krzysztof