linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix pincfg for lan966x

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, 11 Jul 2022 21:47:53 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix pincfg for lan966x

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 9:17 PM Horatiu Vultur
<horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com> wrote:
>
> The blamed commit introduce support for lan966x which use the same
> pinconf_ops as sparx5. The problem is that pinconf_ops is specific to
> sparx5. More precisely the offset of the bits in the pincfg register are
> different and also lan966x doesn't have support for
> PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_SCHMITT_ENABLE.
>
> Fix this by making pinconf_ops more generic such that it can be also
> used by lan966x. This is done by introducing 'ocelot_pincfg_data' which
> contains the offset and what is supported for each SOC.

Thanks for an update!
My comments below.

...

I believe introducing

  struct ocelot_pincfg_data *opd = info->pincfg_data;

may allow to reduce LoCs...

> +                       *val = regcfg &
> +                               (info->pincfg_data->pd_bit |
> +                                info->pincfg_data->pu_bit);

...like here:

 *val = regcfg & (opd->pd_bit | opd->pu_bit);

...

> +       info->desc = devm_kmemdup(dev, &data->desc,
> +                                 sizeof(struct pinctrl_desc), GFP_KERNEL);

sizeof(*info->desc)

and missed the NULL check.

...

> +       info->pincfg_data = devm_kmemdup(dev, &data->pincfg_data,
> +                                        sizeof(struct ocelot_match_data),

sizeof(*info->pincfg_data)
(isn't it a bug here?)

> +                                        GFP_KERNEL);

and missed the NULL check.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko