linux-kernel - RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v9 6/9] spi: cadence: Add Marvell xfer operation support

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: 
 <CO6PR18MB409861918DAF0D8D9FE684EEB0D02@CO6PR18MB4098.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:48:00 +0000
From: Witold Sadowski <wsadowski@...vell.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "robh@...nel.org"
	<robh@...nel.org>,
        "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        "conor+dt@...nel.org"
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        "pthombar@...ence.com" <pthombar@...ence.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v9 6/9] spi: cadence: Add Marvell xfer
 operation support

Hi Mark

> 
> > +		while (t->len) {
> > +
> > +			current_cycle_count = t->len > max_len ? max_len : t-
> >len;
> 
> cycle_count seems like a weird name?
> 
> In general please try to avoid overusing the ternery operator, it doesn't
> help legibility.  Just write normal conditional statements, or in this
> case use max().

Will be addressed in next patchset.

> 
> > +				cdns_xspi->current_xfer_qword +=
> current_cycle_count /
> > +
> MRVL_XFER_QWORD_BYTECOUNT;
> > +				if (current_cycle_count %
> MRVL_XFER_QWORD_BYTECOUNT)
> > +					cdns_xspi->current_xfer_qword++;
> > +
> > +				cdns_xspi->current_xfer_qword %=
> MRVL_XFER_QWORD_COUNT;
> > +			}
> > +			cs_change = t->cs_change;
> > +			t->len -= current_cycle_count;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> This loop doesn't implement any of the delay stuff, ideally it either
> would or would reject transfers that request transfers.

I'm not sure about what kind of the delay You are referring to. Can You explain?

Regards
Witek