linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: tegra186: Add ACPI support

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: <CAHp75VdkC4vcOnC37D4iDZs3g=2K=+iTsXZX=20CK2Og6WtgPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:14:10 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        Suresh Mangipudi <smangipudi@...dia.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: tegra186: Add ACPI support

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 6:07 PM Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com> wrote:

> >What about doing like
>
> >      gpio->secure = devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname(pdev, "security");
> >      if (IS_ERR(gpio->secure))
> >              gpio->secure = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> >      if (IS_ERR(gpio->secure))
> >              return PTR_ERR(gpio->secure);
> >
> >and similar for gpio->base?
>
> Wouldn't this cause a redundant check if it had already succeeded in getting
> the resource by name? Also, could it happen that if the device tree is
> incorrect, then one of the resource is fetched by name and other by the index,
> which I guess, would mess things up. Just my random thoughts, not sure if it
> is valid enough.
>
> >Wouldn't the following be enough?
> >
> >-       gpio->intc.name = pdev->dev.of_node->name;
> >+       gpio->intc.name = devm_kasprintf(&pdev->dev, "%pfw",
> >dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev));
> >+       if (!gpio->intc.name)
> >+
>
> How about this way? I feel it would be right to add the OF functions conditionally.

Looks okay, although I have a question here.

> +   if (pdev->dev.of_node) {

Do we really need this check at all? If the OF-node is NULL then it
doesn't matter if other fields are filled or not, correct?

What you need is #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO (IIRC the name correctly).

> +       gpio->gpio.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> +       gpio->gpio.of_gpio_n_cells = 2;
> +       gpio->gpio.of_xlate = tegra186_gpio_of_xlate;
> +   }
>
> +   gpio->intc.name = gpio->soc->name;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko