linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 7/9] i2c: desingware: Unify firmware type checks

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]

Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:31:05 +0200
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/9] i2c: desingware: Unify firmware type checks

Hi Andy,

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 05:30:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Instead of asymmetrical checks for the firmware use is_*_node()
> calls. With that, drop now local wrappers against
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c | 23 +++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> index 443426474cfc..e6df6a484955 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-common.c
> @@ -241,15 +241,9 @@ static void i2c_dw_of_do_configure(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev, struct device *device
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void i2c_dw_of_configure(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
> -{
> -	if (dev_of_node(dev->dev))
> -		i2c_dw_of_do_configure(dev, dev->dev);
> -}
> -

I have to partially agree with Jarkko here, the patch splitting
of this series is a bit too exotic. Series need to be understood
by reading them forward, not backward.

Oversplitting sometimes might even reduce readability and
"reviewability" (can I say so?). And this function, in seven
patches, has been added, moved and removed, and I had to read the
series twice :)

Anyway, I won't ask you to refactor the whole series, I
understand your logic.

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org> 

Andi