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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:29:30 +0200
From: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...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 24-01-05 14:22:50, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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.
> 

Sure. Will do that instead.

> -- 
> With best wishes
> Dmitry