linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] pinctrl: intel: Enumerate PWM device when community has a capabilitty

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 12:03:35 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] pinctrl: intel: Enumerate PWM device when
 community has a capabilitty

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:45 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Some of the Communities may have PWM capability. In such cases,
> > enumerate PWM device via respective driver. User is still responsible
> > for setting correct pin muxing for the line that needs to output the
> > signal.

...

> > +     pwm = pwm_lpss_probe(pctrl->dev, community->regs + PWMC, &info);
> > +     if (IS_ERR(pwm) && PTR_ERR(pwm) != -ENODEV)
> > +             return PTR_ERR(pwm);
>
> Linus and Andy already agreed that this patch is ugly. I wonder if this
> here would be a bit less ugly if you do:
>
>         if (IS_REACHABLE(...)) {
>                 pwm = pwm_lpss_probe(...);
>                 ...
>
>
>         }
>
> and drop the check PTR_ERR(pwm) != -ENODEV (which might have a different
> semantic than "the pwm driver isn't available").

I will think about it (in such case the comment against the previous
patch makes more sense to me).

Thank you for the review!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko