linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] i2c: mpc: Interrupt driven transfer

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: <20210412181742.GA3175@kunai>
Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:17:42 +0200
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
To:     Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc:     "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] i2c: mpc: Interrupt driven transfer

Hi Chris,

> Yep I plan on being around. I've got access to a couple of designs with 
> P2040 and T2081 so hopefully that's sufficient to deal with any 
> regressions. One issue is a lack of different i2c devices (the systems 
> we have tend to use the same devices) but hopefully any reports of 
> regression will be from people with access to such devices.

Sounds very good to me.

> > That kind of leads to the question if you want to
> > step up as the maintainer for this driver?
> Sure can do. It'd be nice if it was someone from NXP but I think they've 
> lost interest in the PowerPC based SoCs. Should I send a patch for 
> MAINTAINERS? If so does that go through the i2c tree?

Yes, please send a patch and I will merge it via I2C. I don't have hope
for someone from NXP because it was difficult enough to get maintainers
for the actively sold SoCs.

> > Only thing I noticed was a "BUG" and "BUG_ON" and wonder if we really
> > need to halt the kernel in that case. Maybe WARN is enough?
> 
> Yeah I think they can both be WARN variants. The one in mpc_xfer() can 
> happily continue. It's a little less clear what I should do in 
> mpc_i2c_do_action() if the WARN is ever hit but in theory it should be 
> an unreachable case anyway so the only thing that could get there is 
> some kind of memory corruption which would likely cause a crash elsewhere.

Yeah, please change to WARN.

> Do you want me to send a V3 of just that patch?

Yes, plus the MAINTAINERS patch, please.

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)