linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code

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: <CAPLW+4=pqZMry-O6_XT=V5AeZ+FfUwZLVp_=QjqudDrbxbZrCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Nov 2021 00:52:15 +0200
From:   Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code

On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 01:30, Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 00:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/23/21 8:17 AM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 18:06, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 06:56:44PM +0200, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > >>> Now that PMU enablement code was extended for new Exynos SoCs, it
> > >>> doesn't look very cohesive and consistent anymore. Do a bit of renaming,
> > >>> grouping and style changes, to make it look good again. While at it, add
> > >>> quirks documentation as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> No functional change, just a refactoring commit.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
> > >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
> > >>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> Changes in v4:
> > >>>    - Added R-b tag by Guenter Roeck
> > >>>
> > >>> Changes in v3:
> > >>>    - Added quirks documentation
> > >>>    - Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > >>>
> > >>> Changes in v2:
> > >>>    - (none): it's a new patch
> > >>>
> > >>>   drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >>>   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> > >>> index ec341c876225..f211be8bf976 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
> > >>> @@ -56,17 +56,51 @@
> > >>>   #define EXYNOS5_RST_STAT_REG_OFFSET          0x0404
> > >>>   #define EXYNOS5_WDT_DISABLE_REG_OFFSET               0x0408
> > >>>   #define EXYNOS5_WDT_MASK_RESET_REG_OFFSET    0x040c
> > >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_PMU_CONFIG                 (1 << 0)
> > >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_RST_STAT                   (1 << 1)
> > >>> -#define QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG                       (1 << 2)
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/**
> > >>
> > >> 0-day complains:
> > >>
> > >> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c:94: warning: expecting prototype for Quirk flags for different Samsung watchdog IP(). Prototype was for QUIRK_HAS_WTCLRINT_REG() instead
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't seem to like the idea of documented bit masks. Not really sure
> > >> what to do here. I am inclined to ignore it, but I don't want to get flooded
> > >> by 0-day complaints until I retire either. Any idea ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Seems like 0-day thinks this kernel-doc comment is for the first
> > > define only, and thus the comment has wrong format, or something like
> > > that. I tried to follow the same style as GFP_KERNEL and others are
> > > documented.
> > >
> > > Anyway, if you don't like 0-day complaints, can you please just
> > > replace kernel-doc comment (/**) with regular comment (/*), by
> > > removing one asterisk in the patch? Or I can re-send the patch
> > > correspondingly -- then just let me know.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, never mind. Let's just hope that 0-day stops complaining at some point.
> >
>
> Just sent v5 for this patch, fixing that 0-day warning properly. Found
> info about it here: [1]. So to check that warning, apparently it's
> enough to run "make W=n" build, or dry-run for kernel-doc script like
> this:
>
>     $ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>
> Anyway, please take v4 series + v5 for this patch. Hope that'll be all
> for 0-day swearing :)
>
> [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst
>

Hi Guenter,

Can you please take this patch:

    [PATCH v4 12/12] watchdog: s3c2410: Add Exynos850 support

and replace "Cleanup PMU related code" patch you already applied with this one:

    [PATCH v5] watchdog: s3c2410: Cleanup PMU related code

I can see you already took most of WDT patches I sent, but those two
seem to be missing.

Also, I can't see my patches (which are already present in your
"watchdog-next" branch) in linux-next/master. Is that expected, or I'm
missing something?

Thanks!

> > Guenter