linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 tty-next 2/4] serial: 8250_pci1xxxx: Add driver for quad-uart support

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: <Y5tc8mjvxdphtgzj@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 19:44:18 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Kumaravel Thiagarajan <kumaravel.thiagarajan@...rochip.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
        ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, macro@...am.me.uk, cang1@...e.co.uk,
        colin.i.king@...il.com, phil.edworthy@...esas.com,
        biju.das.jz@...renesas.com, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        lukas@...ner.de, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, wander@...hat.com,
        etremblay@...tech-controls.com, jk@...abs.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 tty-next 2/4] serial: 8250_pci1xxxx: Add driver for
 quad-uart support

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 07:42:32PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:56:54AM +0530, Kumaravel Thiagarajan wrote:

...

> > +static unsigned int pci1xxxx_get_max_port(int subsys_dev)
> > +{
> > +	int i = 0;
> 
> What the point to assign this one?
> 
> Actually, better is
> 
> 	unsigned int = MAX_PORTS;
> 
> > +	if (subsys_dev < ARRAY_SIZE(logical_to_physical_port_idx))
> 
> > +		for (i = MAX_PORTS - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> 
> while (i--) {
> 
> > +			if (logical_to_physical_port_idx[subsys_dev][i] != -1)
> > +				return logical_to_physical_port_idx[subsys_dev][i] + 1;
> 
> }
> 
> (Note missinng {} in the above code. Does checkpatch complain on this?)
> 
> > +	if (subsys_dev != PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_EFAR_PCI11414)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	return 4;

Also you can consider the positive check here:

	if (subsys_dev == PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_EFAR_PCI11414)
		return 4;

	return 1;

> > +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko