linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] pinctrl: intel: Enumerate PWM device when community has a capability

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 12:37:03 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] pinctrl: intel: Enumerate PWM device when
 community has a capability

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:06:05AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:55:45PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Some of the Communities may have PWM capability. In such cases,
> 
> Is "Communities" is proper name in this context? If not, I'd not
> capitalize it.

Intel pin control is a set of so called Communities, which are divided by
groups of pins. (There is an intermediate division, but it doesn't affect
software anyhow, so I haven't mentioned it).

> > enumerate the PWM device via respective driver. User is still
> 
> s/User/A user/ ?

OK!

> > responsible for setting correct pin muxing for the line that
> > needs to output the signal.

...

> > +	pwm = devm_pwm_lpss_probe(pctrl->dev, community->regs + PWMC, &info);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(pwm))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(pwm);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> 
> The last 3 codelines can be replaced by
> 
> 	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pwm);
> 
> (but I know it's subjective if you like that or not, so I won't insist;
> see also b784c77075023e1a71bc06e6b4f711acb99e9c73).

Yes, it used to be like that in some of my previous attempts
(maybe not public), but have been changed due to an additional
error check which is gone, so it can be reinstantiated now.

...

> All in all this is all very minor, so:
> 
> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> 
> even if you keep the patch as is.

Thank you, I will amend as you suggested.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko