| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:02:11 -0400
From: Hugo Villeneuve <hugo@...ovil.com>
To: wenhua lin <wenhua.lin1994@...il.com>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xiongpeng Wu <xiongpeng.wu@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: sprd: Modify the calculation method of eic
number
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 14:08:47 +0800
wenhua lin <wenhua.lin1994@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi baolin:
> 1.Please describe the problem in detail, not only what you did.
>
> We will describe the reason for the modification by supplementing the
> commit message.
>
> 2.Can you explicit on which controller can support 8 banks in the commit
> log? And you did not change all the related comments in this file.
>
> The old project EIC controller can support maximum 3 banks,
> now our new project eic controller can support maximum 8 banks，
> and each bank contains 8 EICs.
> We will modify the comment in this file.
>
> 3.If you want to introduce a readable macro, that's fine, but it should be
> split into a separate patch.
> 4.This change looks good to me, and this seems a software bug in the
> original driver. So I think this change should be moved into a separate
> patch with a suitable Fixes tag.
> 5.Do not add unreated changes that you did not mentioned in the commit log.
>
> We will re-split the patch submission and explain our reasons for
> modification in the submission information, thank you very much for
> your review.
Hi,
please do not top-post and insert your answers in-line to make it
easier to read. There is good advice here:
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#use-trimmed-interleaved-replies-in-email-discussions
Thank you,
Hugo Villeneuve
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> 于2023年8月9日周三 09:24写道：
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/8/2023 11:31 AM, Wenhua Lin wrote:
> > > Automatic calculation through matching nodes,
> > > subsequent projects can avoid modifying driver files.
> >
> > Please describe the problem in detail, not only what you did.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wenhua Lin <Wenhua.Lin@...soc.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c
> > > index 84352a6f4973..0d85d9e80848 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-eic-sprd.c
> > > @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@
> > > #define SPRD_EIC_SYNC_DATA 0x1c
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * The digital-chip EIC controller can support maximum 3 banks, and each bank
> > > + * The digital-chip EIC controller can support maximum 8 banks, and each bank
> >
> > Can you explicit on which controller can support 8 banks in the commit
> > log? And you did not change all the related comments in this file.
> >
> > > * contains 8 EICs.
> > > */
> > > -#define SPRD_EIC_MAX_BANK 3
> > > +#define SPRD_EIC_MAX_BANK 8
> > > #define SPRD_EIC_PER_BANK_NR 8
> > > #define SPRD_EIC_DATA_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
> > > #define SPRD_EIC_BIT(x) ((x) & (SPRD_EIC_PER_BANK_NR - 1))
> > > @@ -99,33 +99,32 @@ struct sprd_eic {
> > >
> > > struct sprd_eic_variant_data {
> > > enum sprd_eic_type type;
> > > - u32 num_eics;
> > > };
> > >
> > > +#define SPRD_EIC_VAR_DATA(soc_name) \
> > > +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_dbnc_data = { \
> > > + .type = SPRD_EIC_DEBOUNCE, \
> > > +}; \
> > > + \
> > > +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_latch_data = { \
> > > + .type = SPRD_EIC_LATCH, \
> > > +}; \
> > > + \
> > > +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_async_data = { \
> > > + .type = SPRD_EIC_ASYNC, \
> > > +}; \
> > > + \
> > > +static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data soc_name##_eic_sync_data = { \
> > > + .type = SPRD_EIC_SYNC, \
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +SPRD_EIC_VAR_DATA(sc9860);
> > > +
> > > static const char *sprd_eic_label_name[SPRD_EIC_MAX] = {
> > > "eic-debounce", "eic-latch", "eic-async",
> > > "eic-sync",
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_dbnc_data = {
> > > - .type = SPRD_EIC_DEBOUNCE,
> > > - .num_eics = 8,
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_latch_data = {
> > > - .type = SPRD_EIC_LATCH,
> > > - .num_eics = 8,
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_async_data = {
> > > - .type = SPRD_EIC_ASYNC,
> > > - .num_eics = 8,
> > > -};
> > > -
> > > -static const struct sprd_eic_variant_data sc9860_eic_sync_data = {
> > > - .type = SPRD_EIC_SYNC,
> > > - .num_eics = 8,
> > > -};
> >
> > If you want to introduce a readable macro, that's fine, but it should be
> > split into a separate patch.
> >
> > > static inline void __iomem *sprd_eic_offset_base(struct sprd_eic *sprd_eic,
> > > unsigned int bank)
> > > @@ -583,6 +582,7 @@ static int sprd_eic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > struct sprd_eic *sprd_eic;
> > > struct resource *res;
> > > int ret, i;
> > > + u16 num_banks = 0;
> > >
> > > pdata = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > > if (!pdata) {
> > > @@ -613,12 +613,13 @@ static int sprd_eic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > break;
> > >
> > > sprd_eic->base[i] = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> > > + num_banks++;
> > > if (IS_ERR(sprd_eic->base[i]))
> > > return PTR_ERR(sprd_eic->base[i]);
> > > }
> > >
> > > sprd_eic->chip.label = sprd_eic_label_name[sprd_eic->type];
> > > - sprd_eic->chip.ngpio = pdata->num_eics;
> > > + sprd_eic->chip.ngpio = num_banks * SPRD_EIC_PER_BANK_NR;
> >
> > This change looks good to me, and this seems a software bug in the
> > original driver. So I think this change should be moved into a separate
> > patch with a suitable Fixes tag.
> >
> > > sprd_eic->chip.base = -1;
> > > sprd_eic->chip.parent = &pdev->dev;
> > > sprd_eic->chip.direction_input = sprd_eic_direction_input;
> > > @@ -630,10 +631,12 @@ static int sprd_eic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > sprd_eic->chip.set = sprd_eic_set;
> > > fallthrough;
> > > case SPRD_EIC_ASYNC:
> > > + fallthrough;
> > > case SPRD_EIC_SYNC:
> > > sprd_eic->chip.get = sprd_eic_get;
> > > break;
> > > case SPRD_EIC_LATCH:
> > > + fallthrough;
> >
> > Do not add unreated changes that you did not mentioned in the commit log.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists