linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: c8sectpfe: convert to gpio descriptors

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: <14e7d2ba-1a24-42a1-b19e-842e0fd8286e@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 19:17:32 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Patrice Chotard" <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>,
        "Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "Hans Verkuil" <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
        "Hugues Fruchet" <hugues.fruchet@...com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: c8sectpfe: convert to gpio descriptors

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023, at 18:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:09:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

>> +		ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(tsin->rst_gpio);
>>  		if (ret && ret != -EBUSY) {
>> -			dev_err(dev, "Can't request tsin%d reset gpio\n"
>> -				, fei->channel_data[index]->tsin_id);
>> +			dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
>> +				      "reset gpio for tsin%d not valid\n",
>> +				      tsin->tsin_id);
>>  			goto err_node_put;
>>  		}
>>  
>>  		if (!ret) {
>
> Can be 
>
> 	if (IS_ERR() && PTR_ERR() != -EBUSY) {
> 		ret = dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(), ...);
> 		...
> 	}
>
> 	if (!IS_ERR())
>
> (Up to you)

I prefer the version that only has one PTR_ERR(), but
either way is fine with me.

> But -EBUSY check seems strange to me. What was the motivation behind?
> (As far as I can read the code the possibility to get this if and only
>  if we have requested GPIO too early at initcall level. Would it be
>  ever a possibility to get it in real life?)

I noticed this part as being odd as well, no idea why the
code is like this. I just left the logic unchanged here.

      Arnd