linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 5/8] remoteproc: qcom: Update regmap offsets for halt register

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]

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:11:27 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Gokul Sriram Palanisamy <quic_gokulsri@...cinc.com>, sboyd@...nel.org,
 andersson@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, david.brown@...aro.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jassisinghbrar@...il.com,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
 mark.rutland@....com, mturquette@...libre.com, ohad@...ery.com,
 robh@...nel.org, sricharan@...eaurora.org
Cc: gokulsri@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/8] remoteproc: qcom: Update regmap offsets for halt
 register

On 21/06/2024 13:46, Gokul Sriram Palanisamy wrote:
> Fixed issue in reading halt-regs parameter from device-tree.

What issue?

That's a terrible commit msg. Explain what is the problem, how can it be
reproduced.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gokul Sriram Palanisamy <quic_gokulsri@...cinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c
> index 06936ca1d079..87b78eb15b86 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
>  #define TCSR_WCSS_CLK_MASK	0x1F
>  #define TCSR_WCSS_CLK_ENABLE	0x14
>  
> -#define MAX_HALT_REG		3
> +#define MAX_HALT_REG		4

? That's confusing and looks unrelated.


Best regards,
Krzysztof