linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 5/9] serial: sc16is7xx: fix regression with GPIO configuration

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: <20230620100846.d58436efc061fb91074fa7e5@hugovil.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:08:46 -0400
From:   Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@...ovil.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, jringle@...dpoint.com,
        tomasz.mon@...lingroup.com, l.perczak@...lintechnologies.com,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Hugo Villeneuve <hvilleneuve@...onoff.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/9] serial: sc16is7xx: fix regression with GPIO
 configuration

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 22:31:04 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 8:45 PM Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@...ovil.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 14:57:31 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:47 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:26:21AM -0400, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > +static u8 sc16is7xx_setup_mctrl_ports(struct device *dev)
> > > >
> > > > This returns what, mctrl?  If so, please document that, it doesn't look
> > > > obvious.
> > >
> > > Good suggestion. Because I also stumbled over the returned type.
> > >
> > > >  And as the kernel test robot reported, you do nothing with the
> > > > return value so why compute it?
> > >
> > > It seems that the entire function and respective call has to be moved
> > > under #ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB.
> >
> > Hi,
> > it cannot. See my explanations in response to Greg's comments.
> 
> Then as Greg suggested, store in the structure and make this function
> to return an error code (with int), with this amendment you don't need
> to add a comment about the returned variable anymore.

Hi Andy,
did you have a chance to look at V8 (sent two weks ago) which fixed all
of what we discussed?

Thank you,
Hugo.