linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] platform/x86: serial-multi-instantiate: Improve autodetection

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75Vcfr9mjgWPRwg8i5OatEyLCDR-vMazarSAtJXd_-Fee-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Jul 2022 13:34:08 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] platform/x86: serial-multi-instantiate: Improve autodetection

On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:00 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 7/9/22 11:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 9, 2022, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com <mailto:hdegoede@...hat.com>> wrote:
> >     On 7/9/22 02:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> >     So nack for this
> >
> > This effectively means nack to the series.

> > But it’s easy to fix. I can add check for ret == 0.

So, are you okay with fixing it this way? See below how.

> I don't see how this is a nack for the series, just drop 1/7 + 2/7
> and rebase the rest. Yes there will be conflicts to resolve in
> the rebase, but the rest of the cleanups can still go upstream
> after the rebase.

Because patch 3 makes a little sense on its own if we drop the patch
2. The rest is the simple cleanups which I do not consider as a core
of this series.

> >     >       case SMI_AUTO_DETECT:
> >     > -             if (i2c_acpi_client_count(adev) > 0)
> >     > -                     return smi_i2c_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances);
> >     > -             else
> >     > -                     return smi_spi_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances);
> >     > +             ret = smi_i2c_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances);
> >     > +             if (ret && ret != -ENOENT)
> >     > +                     return ret;

/*
 * ...comment about why we do the following check...
 */
 if (ret == 0)
  return ret;

> >     > +             ret = smi_spi_probe(pdev, adev, smi, node->instances);
> >     > +             if (ret && ret != -ENOENT)
> >     > +                     return ret;
> >     > +             if (ret)
> >     > +                     return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Error No resources found\n");
> >     > +             break;

if (ret == -ENOENT)
  return dev_err_probe(...);
return ret;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko