linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Add PMCI driver

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]

Message-ID: <Y44cJjKZvpL+SUHb@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 00:28:22 +0800
From:   Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        Tianfei zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] mfd: intel-m10-bmc: Add PMCI driver

On 2022-12-05 at 11:51:15 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2022, Xu Yilun wrote:
> 
> > On 2022-12-02 at 12:08:39 +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > +					  void __iomem *base,
> > > +					  struct regmap_config *cfg,
> > > +					  struct lock_class_key *lock_key,
> > > +					  const char *lock_name)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct indirect_ctx *ctx;
> > > +
> > > +	ctx = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	if (!ctx)
> > > +		return NULL;
> > > +
> > > +	ctx->base = base;
> > > +	ctx->dev = dev;
> > > +
> > > +	indirect_bus_clear_cmd(ctx);
> > > +
> > > +	return __devm_regmap_init(dev, &indirect_bus, ctx, cfg, lock_key, lock_name);
> > 
> > Sorry, I just can't remember why don't we just call devm_regmap_init() and
> > get rid of all lock stuff?
> 
> At this point, we're already entered into __-domain though a
> __regmap_lockdep_wrapper(). If I call devm_regmap_init() here, the 
> second call into the wrapper would create another key which doesn't seem 
> right.

I mean could we not define new regmap_init_xxx & __regmap_init_xxx
APIs? Just call devm_regmap_init() when we have prepared the context,
devm_regmap_init() will take care of the lock stuff.

Thanks,
Yilun