linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] serial: 8250_pnp: Support configurable reg shift property

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZhaW3PM3TccV5t3w@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:40:44 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: albanhuang <albanhuang0@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, tony@...mide.com,
	john.ogness@...utronix.de, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
	jirislaby@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, lvjianmin@...ngson.cn,
	albanhuang@...cent.com, tombinfan@...cent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] serial: 8250_pnp: Support configurable reg shift
 property

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:49:29AM +0800, albanhuang wrote:
> 在 2024/4/9 20:53, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:43:20PM +0800, Guanbing Huang wrote:
> > > From: Guanbing Huang <albanhuang@...cent.com>
> > > 
> > > The 16550a serial port based on the ACPI table requires obtaining the
> > > reg-shift attribute. In the ACPI scenario, If the reg-shift property
> > > is not configured like in DTS, the 16550a serial driver cannot read or
> > > write controller registers properly during initialization.
> > > 
> > > To address the issue of configuring the reg-shift property, the
> > > __uart_read_properties() universal interface is called to implement it.
> > > Adaptation of PNP devices is done in the __uart_read_properties() function.
> > You either forgot or deliberately not added my tag. Can you elaborate?
> 
> I'm very sorry, this is my first time submitting a kernel patch. My
> understanding
> 
> of the submission specification is not comprehensive and profound enough,
> 
> and I didn't intentionally not add tags. I hope you can forgive my
> operational mistake.
> 
> Should I just add a "Reviewed-by tag", or do I need any other tags? Thanks.

Understood. So if you are is one who is sending a new version, you should take
care about any given tags (such as Reviewed-by) and carry them, in case the
code is not drastically changed. I.o.w. if you don't, you have to explain why.

Anyways, it seems the patch still has a flaw as per LKP, so fix that by
providing probably two macros in the pnp.h header for both cases
(CONFIG_PNP=y/n), and I will review it again.

	#ifdef CONFIG_PNP
	...
	#define dev_is_pnp(...) ...
	...
	#else
	...
	#define dev_is_pnp(...)		false
	...
	#endif

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko