linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: mvebu: Fix check for pwm support on non-A8K platforms

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: <YtAX427pw+3tnV84@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:19:31 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: mvebu: Fix check for pwm support on non-A8K
 platforms

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 01:55:12PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> pwm support incompatible with Armada 80x0/70x0 API is not only in
> Armada 370, but also in Armada XP, 38x and 39x. So basically every non-A8K
> platform. Fix check for pwm support appropriately.
> 
> Fixes: 85b7d8abfec7 ("gpio: mvebu: add pwm support for Armada 8K/7K")
> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c
> index 2db19cd640a4..70a22b68c034 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c
> @@ -793,8 +793,7 @@ static int mvebu_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>  	u32 offset;
>  	u32 set;
>  
> -	if (of_device_is_compatible(mvchip->chip.of_node,
> -				    "marvell,armada-370-gpio")) {
> +	if (mvchip->soc_variant != MVEBU_GPIO_SOC_VARIANT_A8K) {
>  		/*
>  		 * There are only two sets of PWM configuration registers for
>  		 * all the GPIO lines on those SoCs which this driver reserves

The current code is:

        if (of_device_is_compatible(mvchip->chip.of_node,
                                    "marvell,armada-370-gpio")) {
                /*
                 * There are only two sets of PWM configuration registers for
                 * all the GPIO lines on those SoCs which this driver reserves
                 * for the first two GPIO chips. So if the resource is missing
                 * we can't treat it as an error.
                 */
                if (!platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "pwm"))
                        return 0;
                offset = 0;
        } else if (mvchip->soc_variant == MVEBU_GPIO_SOC_VARIANT_A8K) {
                int ret = of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node,
                                               "marvell,pwm-offset", &offset);
                if (ret < 0)
                        return 0;
        } else {
                return 0;
        }

With your change, don't we end up with:

	if (foo)
	    .....
	else if (!foo)
	    .....
	else
	    .....

The static analysers are going to complain about this.

    Andrew