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: <037e8534-746d-da0a-24da-a47a9856d689@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:56:34 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
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 11/27/21 2:52 PM, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Upstream work is always "time permitting". Done now.

> 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?
> 
My watchdog-next branch is for 0-day coverage only. It is not made
available in linux-next. linux-next pulls watchdog related changes
from the official watchdog repository at
git://www.linux-watchdog.org/linux-watchdog-next.git#master

Guenter