linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: samsung: usi: remove superfluous parameter

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3fe1db30-038c-4ff5-8344-5b824503bd7d@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 07:02:53 +0100
From:   Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To:     Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
Cc:     krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peter.griffin@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: samsung: usi: remove superfluous parameter

Hi,

On 10/7/23 00:08, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 4:00 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> exynos_usi_set_sw_conf() has a single caller, exynos_usi_configure,
>> which called it with exynos_usi_set_sw_conf(usi, usi->mode). Since the
>> mode is already defined in struct exynos_usi, remove the superfluous
>> pass of the mode parameter. While in exynos_usi_set_sw_conf(), remove the
>> reinitialization of usi->mode with its same value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
>> ---
> 
> This driver was designed with the easiness of its further possible
> extension in mind. For example, passing the "mode" into
> exynos_usi_set_sw_conf() allows one to implement some sysfs nodes for
> switching USI configuration manually, just by passing the user's mode
> into exynos_usi_set_sw_conf(). Other things which might also appear as
> over-engineered, make it easy to add USI_V1 implementation, as we
> discussed that possibility at the time. So yeah, it was done for a
> reason, and I'd prefer to leave it as is.
> 

Fine by me, thanks for the explanation.
Cheers,
ta