linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator fault in .remove()

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:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:06:39 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: stmfx: Improve error message triggered by regulator
 fault in .remove()

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:46:37PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > Returning a non-zero value in an i2c remove callback results in the i2c
> > core emitting a very generic error message ("remove failed (-ESOMETHING),
> > will be ignored") and as the message indicates not further error handling
> > is done.
> > 
> > Instead emit a more specific error message and then return zero in
> > .remove().
> > 
> > The long-term goal is to make the i2c remove prototype return void, making
> > all implementations return 0 is preparatory work for this change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/stmfx.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > index e095a3930142..16631c675f2f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/stmfx.c
> > @@ -392,17 +392,21 @@ static int stmfx_chip_init(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +static void stmfx_chip_exit(struct i2c_client *client)
> >  {
> >  	struct stmfx *stmfx = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >  
> >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_IRQ_SRC_EN, 0);
> >  	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
> >  
> > -	if (stmfx->vdd)
> > -		return regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> > +	if (stmfx->vdd) {
> > +		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > +		if (ret)
> 
> Nit: Premise of the patch is fine, but please can you use the standard
> function call, check the return value format please.  Something about
> this is triggering my OCD! :)
> 
>      	int ret;
> 
> 	ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
> 	if (ret)
> 		do_thing();

Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you want just:

 	regmap_write(stmfx->map, STMFX_REG_SYS_CTRL, 0);
 
 	if (stmfx->vdd) {
-		int ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
+		int ret;
+
+		ret = regulator_disable(stmfx->vdd);
 		if (ret)
 ...

squashed into the patch?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)