linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] spi: spi-altera-dfl: support n5010 feature revision

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: <d6250f86-db93-bcc2-d46e-6dba30976cc4@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Jul 2021 07:56:24 -0700
From:   Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To:     Martin Hundebøll <martin@...nix.com>,
        Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Martin Hundebøll <mhu@...icom.dk>,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] spi: spi-altera-dfl: support n5010 feature
 revision


On 7/5/21 3:16 AM, Martin Hundebøll wrote:
> From: Martin Hundebøll <mhu@...icom.dk>
>
> The Max10 BMC on the Silicom n5010 PAC is slightly different than the
> existing BMCs, so use a dedicated feature revision detect it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Hundebøll <mhu@...icom.dk>
> Reviewed-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
> ---
>
> Changes since v3:
>   * Changed "BMC's" to "BMCs"
>   * Added Moritz' Reviewed-by
>
> Changes since v2:
>   * None
>
> Changes since v1:
>   * use feature revision from struct dfl_device instead of reading it
>     from io-mem
>
>   drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c b/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c
> index 3e32e4fe5895..f6cf7c8d9dac 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-altera-dfl.c
> @@ -111,6 +111,13 @@ static struct spi_board_info m10_bmc_info = {
>   	.chip_select = 0,
>   };
>   
> +static struct spi_board_info m10_n5010_bmc_info = {
> +	.modalias = "m10-n5010",
> +	.max_speed_hz = 12500000,
> +	.bus_num = 0,
> +	.chip_select = 0,
> +};

Other then the modalias, this is exactly the same as m10_bmc_info.

Why not set platform_data?

> +
>   static void config_spi_master(void __iomem *base, struct spi_master *master)
>   {
>   	u64 v;
> @@ -130,6 +137,7 @@ static void config_spi_master(void __iomem *base, struct spi_master *master)
>   
>   static int dfl_spi_altera_probe(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev)
>   {
> +	struct spi_board_info *board_info = &m10_bmc_info;
>   	struct device *dev = &dfl_dev->dev;
>   	struct spi_master *master;
>   	struct altera_spi *hw;
> @@ -172,9 +180,12 @@ static int dfl_spi_altera_probe(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev)
>   		goto exit;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (!spi_new_device(master,  &m10_bmc_info)) {
> +	if (dfl_dev->revision == FME_FEATURE_REV_MAX10_SPI_N5010)
> +		board_info = &m10_n5010_bmc_info;

The revision is board parameter, I think this check could be improved.

There should be a

#define FME_FATURE_REV_MAX10_SPI_D5005 0

And it checked here instead of setting above.

And -EINVAL returned if the revision is not known.

> +
> +	if (!spi_new_device(master, board_info)) {
>   		dev_err(dev, "%s failed to create SPI device: %s\n",
> -			__func__, m10_bmc_info.modalias);
> +			__func__, board_info->modalias);

Why isn't this error handled ?

Tom

>   	}
>   
>   	return 0;