linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 13/26] cxl/port: Store the downstream port's Component Register mappings in struct cxl

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: <6483deb75d0e5_e067a29420@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 19:23:51 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        <bwidawsk@...nel.org>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        <dave.jiang@...el.com>, <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <terry.bowman@....com>, <rrichter@....com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 13/26] cxl/port: Store the downstream port's Component
 Register mappings in struct cxl_dport

Terry Bowman wrote:
> From: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
> 
> Same as for ports, also store the downstream port's Component Register
> mappings, use struct cxl_dport for that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/core/port.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  drivers/cxl/cxl.h       |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> index 305125b193ce..a40d8cefb57d 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,13 @@ static inline int cxl_port_setup_regs(struct cxl_port *port,
>  				   component_reg_phys);
>  }
>  
> +static inline int cxl_dport_setup_regs(struct cxl_dport *dport,
> +				       resource_size_t component_reg_phys)
> +{
> +	return cxl_setup_comp_regs(dport->dev, &dport->comp_map,
> +				   component_reg_phys);
> +}
> +
>  static struct cxl_port *__devm_cxl_add_port(struct device *host,
>  					    struct device *uport,
>  					    resource_size_t component_reg_phys,
> @@ -992,6 +999,10 @@ __devm_cxl_add_dport(struct cxl_port *port, struct device *dport_dev,
>  	dport->component_reg_phys = component_reg_phys;
>  	dport->port = port;
>  
> +	rc = cxl_dport_setup_regs(dport, component_reg_phys);
> +	if (rc && rc != -ENODEV)
> +		return ERR_PTR(rc);

Ah I see that you wanted to share a similar function between this case
and the last patch, but I would still remove one layer of indirection
and make the setup return 0 if there is nothing to do rather than the 

     if (rc && rc != -ENODEV)

...the stresses out the reader wondering where that special error code
case is generated.

Otherwise, makes sense.