linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 17/17] spi: s3c64xx: use bitfield access macros

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: <facbcbf3-7dba-43a1-b4fe-ac77b5bef545@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 03:44:24 +0000
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, andi.shyti@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
 jassi.brar@...sung.com, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andre.draszik@...aro.org,
 peter.griffin@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, willmcvicker@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 17/17] spi: s3c64xx: use bitfield access macros



On 1/27/24 03:38, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>>>> -               val |= S3C64XX_SPI_MODE_BUS_TSZ_HALFWORD;
>>>> -               val |= S3C64XX_SPI_MODE_CH_TSZ_HALFWORD;
>>>> +               val |= FIELD_PREP(S3C64XX_SPI_MODE_BUS_TSZ_MASK,
>>>> +                                 S3C64XX_SPI_MODE_BUS_TSZ_HALFWORD) |
>>>> +                      FIELD_PREP(S3C64XX_SPI_MODE_CH_TSZ_MASK,
>>>> +                                 S3C64XX_SPI_MODE_CH_TSZ_HALFWORD);
>>> Two people complained it makes the code harder to read. Yet it's not
>>> addressed in v3. Please see my comments for your previous submission
>>> explaining what can be done, and also Andi's comment on that matter.
>> I kept these intentionally. Please read my reply on that matter or the
>> cover letter to this patch set.
>>
> I read it. But still don't like it 🙂 I'm sure it's possible to do
> this modification, but at the same time keep the code clean an easy to
> read. The code above -- I don't like at all, sorry. It was much better
> before this patch, IMHO.

Yeah, I guess Mark will tip the scale.

Cheers,
ta