linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: qualcomm: eusb2-repeater: Rework init to drop redundant zero-out loop

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: <CAA8EJpq88bhFFY2RcSEqaecoTw4a_ps6Osx5rJs3s0Mi7toXyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 14:22:50 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, 
	Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: qualcomm: eusb2-repeater: Rework init to drop
 redundant zero-out loop

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 13:44, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 5.01.2024 11:16, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > The device match config init table already has zero values, so rework
> > the container struct to hold a copy of the init table that can be
> > override be the DT specified values. By doing this, only the number of
> > vregs remain in the device match config that will be later needed, so
> > instead of holding the cfg after probe, store the number of vregs in the
> > container struct.
> >
> > Fixes: 99a517a582fc ("phy: qualcomm: phy-qcom-eusb2-repeater: Zero out untouched tuning regs")
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
> > ---
>
> This looks good as-is, though I think my proposal of storing the
> peripheral base reg instead is still better, as it'd require less
> memory (no kmemdup as the regs wouldn't be modified).

I'd second this. We usually handle such cases via the base + offset
rather than patching the data. If regfields can not handle this, then
the regfield should be fixed.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry