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

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: <20220711202646.om65vrksyifvkfkw@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 22:26:46 +0200
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.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 2/2] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix pincfg

The 07/11/2022 21:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 9:17 PM Horatiu Vultur
> <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com> wrote:
> >
> > The blamed commit changed to use regmaps instead of __iomem. But it
> > didn't update the register offsets to be at word offset, so it uses byte
> > offset.
> > Another issue with the same commit is that it has a limit of 32 registers
> > which is incorrect. The sparx5 has 64 while lan966x has 77.
> 
> ...
> 
> > -static struct regmap *ocelot_pinctrl_create_pincfg(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +static struct regmap *ocelot_pinctrl_create_pincfg(struct ocelot_pinctrl *info,
> > +                                                  struct platform_device *pdev)
> 
> const?
> 
> And I would leave pdev to be the first parameter, if there are no
> other functions that have them like this.

I will do that in the next version.
Just for my understanding/knowledge why is this desire to have const or
to keep the const?

> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

-- 
/Horatiu