linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] rtc: isl12022: simplify some expressions

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: <4fdd52c9-2de7-b86b-f081-cb59a8f72c5a@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:08:52 +0200
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] rtc: isl12022: simplify some expressions

On 14/09/2022 17.08, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 30/08/2022 12:01:48+0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> These instances of '&client->dev' might as well be spelled 'dev', since
>> 'client' has been computed from 'dev' via 'client =
>> to_i2c_client(dev)'.
>>
>> Later patches will get rid of that local variable 'client', so remove
>> these unnecessary references so those later patches become easier to
>> read.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
>> ---
>>  drivers/rtc/rtc-isl12022.c | 11 +++++------
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-isl12022.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-isl12022.c
>> index 2dc19061cf5f..5e6bb9153c89 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-isl12022.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-isl12022.c
>> @@ -112,13 +112,13 @@ static int isl12022_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>>  		return ret;
>>  
>>  	if (buf[ISL12022_REG_SR] & (ISL12022_SR_LBAT85 | ISL12022_SR_LBAT75)) {
>> -		dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> +		dev_warn(dev,
> 
> While at it, I would prefer that one to also become a dev_dbg

Well, I prefer to keep it, because my customer actually wants to use
this information. Grepping it out from dmesg is of course not the best
interface, but if it gets demoted to a dev_dbg() it doesn't even get there.

I'll address your other comments and respin. Thanks.

Rasmus