linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: qca: set power_ctrl_enabled on NULL returned by gpiod_get

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 04:16:09 -0700
From: Wren Turkal <wt@...guintechs.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
 Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
 Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: qca: set power_ctrl_enabled on NULL returned
 by gpiod_get_optional()

On 4/24/24 2:04 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:07:05 +0200, Wren Turkal<wt@...guintechs.org>  said:
>> On 4/22/24 6:00 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski<bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> Any return value from gpiod_get_optional() other than a pointer to a
>>> GPIO descriptor or a NULL-pointer is an error and the driver should
>>> abort probing. That being said: commit 56d074d26c58 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca:
>>> don't use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with gpiod_get_optional()") no longer sets
>>> power_ctrl_enabled on NULL-pointer returned by
>>> devm_gpiod_get_optional(). Restore this behavior but bail-out on errors.
>> Nack. This patch does fixes neither the disable/re-enable problem nor
>> the warm boot problem.
>>
>> Zijun replied to this patch also with what I think is the proper
>> reasoning for why it doesn't fix my setup.
>>
> Indeed, I only addressed a single issue here and not the code under the
> default: label of the switch case. Sorry.
> 
> Could you give the following diff a try?

I had a feeling that was what was going on. I'll give the patch a shot.

wt
-- 
You're more amazing than you think!