linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: pi433: move get version func to where all other functions are

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]

Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:19:46 +0000
From:   Sidong Yang <realwakka@...il.com>
To:     Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: pi433: move get version func to where all other
 functions are

On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 10:31:10PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:


> As a convention for the pi433 driver, all routines that deals with the
> rf69 chip are defined in the rf69.c file. There was an exception in
> which the uC version verification was being done directly elsewhere.
> While at it, the Version Register hardcoded value was replaced with a
> pre-existing constant in the driver.
> 
> This patch adds rf69_get_chip_version function to rf69.c
> 
> Additionally, the patch below must be applied first as it was sent
> before and touches the same file.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220103222334.GA6814@mail.google.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>

Hi, Paulo. 
Thanks for a patch.

I think it's good overall. But I have some opinion below.

> ---
>  drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c | 4 +---
>  drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c     | 8 ++++++++
>  drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h     | 1 +
>  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
> index 29bd37669059..a19afda5b188 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
> @@ -1116,9 +1116,7 @@ static int pi433_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  		spi->mode, spi->bits_per_word, spi->max_speed_hz);
>  
>  	/* Ping the chip by reading the version register */
> -	retval = spi_w8r8(spi, 0x10);
> -	if (retval < 0)
> -		return retval;
> +	retval = rf69_get_chip_version(spi);
>  
>  	switch (retval) {
>  	case 0x24:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c
> index d64df072d8e8..1516012f9bb7 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c
> @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ static inline int rf69_read_mod_write(struct spi_device *spi, u8 reg,
>  
>  /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>  
> +int rf69_get_chip_version(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
> +	int retval;
> +
> +	retval = rf69_read_reg(spi, REG_VERSION);
> +	return retval;
> +}
> +
If we don't modify retval, why don't we just return directly without
retval?

>  int rf69_set_mode(struct spi_device *spi, enum mode mode)
>  {
>  	static const u8 mode_map[] = {
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h
> index b648ba5fff89..ca9b75267840 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #define FIFO_SIZE	66		/* bytes */
>  #define FIFO_THRESHOLD	15		/* bytes */
>  
> +int rf69_get_chip_version(struct spi_device *spi);
IMHO, I think that we don't need to include 'chip'. Because all other
functions in this code don't have 'chip' in function name. and version
code seems to be more accurate representation.

>  int rf69_set_mode(struct spi_device *spi, enum mode mode);
>  int rf69_set_data_mode(struct spi_device *spi, u8 data_mode);
>  int rf69_set_modulation(struct spi_device *spi, enum modulation modulation);
> -- 
> 2.25.4
>