linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mfd: rohm-bd71828: Add power off functionality

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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:32:05 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc: lee@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, mazziesaccount@...il.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mfd: rohm-bd71828: Add power off functionality

On 25/03/2024 21:21, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:13:13 +0100
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 24/03/2024 21:12, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>>>  	struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data;
>>> @@ -542,7 +560,18 @@ static int bd71828_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>>>  	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, mfd, cells,
>>>  				   NULL, 0, regmap_irq_get_domain(irq_data));
>>>  	if (ret)
>>> -		dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, ret, "Failed to create subdevices\n");
>>> +		return	dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, ret, "Failed to create subdevices\n");
>>> +
>>> +	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
>>> +		if (!pm_power_off) {
>>> +			bd71828_dev = i2c;
>>> +			pm_power_off = bd71828_power_off;
>>> +			ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&i2c->dev,
>>> +						       bd71828_remove_poweroff,
>>> +						       NULL);
>>> +		} else
>>> +			dev_warn(&i2c->dev, "Poweroff callback already assigned\n");  
>>
>> Missing {}
>>
>> Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl and fix reported warnings. Some
>> warnings can be ignored, but the code here looks like it needs a fix.
>> Feel free to get in touch if the warning is not clear.
>>
> No, it does not complain about the {}. I was a bit unsure whether it is
> required or not, but I was sure that checkpatch.pl does catch such things.
> Yes, documentation clearly says that braces are required in those cases.

"CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement"

I will update my template-response to use --strict.


Best regards,
Krzysztof