linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] phy: realtek: usb: Add driver for the Realtek SoC USB 2.0 PHY

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: <0d4d77db-3d09-a5ab-b3e6-93da771b4b2d@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:00:14 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Stanley Chang[昌育德] 
        <stanley_chang@...ltek.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Ray Chi <raychi@...gle.com>,
        Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@...m.it>,
        "linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] phy: realtek: usb: Add driver for the Realtek SoC
 USB 2.0 PHY

On 08/06/2023 08:59, Stanley Chang[昌育德] wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> 
>> I commented on your second patch, but everything is applicable here as well.
>> You have many useless debug messages. Many incorrect or useless
>> "if() return" which point to broken driver design (e.g. concurrent access to half
>> initialized structures where you substitute lack of synchronization with
>> incorrect "if() return"). Undocumented user interface is one more big trouble.
>>
>> I doubt you run checkpatch on this (be sure to run it with --strict and fix almost
>> everything).
>>
>>
> 1. I use checkpatch but without --strict. I will add it add and check again.
> 2. Do the debugfs interfaces need to provide a document?
> I don't find any reference about this.

debugfs interface is for debug but in your case you don't use it that way.



Best regards,
Krzysztof