linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] usb: typec: fsa4480: Check if the chip is really there

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]

Message-ID: <30b6e9eb-a6f5-4238-93fe-4d8a19b31590@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:52:22 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: typec: fsa4480: Check if the chip is really there



On 26.07.2024 3:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>>
>> Currently, the driver will happily register the switch/mux devices, and
>> so long as the i2c master doesn't complain, the user would never know
>> there's something wrong.
>>
>> Add a device id check (based on [1]) and return -ENODEV if the read
>> fails or returns nonsense.
>>
>> Checking the value on a Qualcomm SM6115P-based Lenovo Tab P11 tablet,
>> the ID mentioned in the datasheet does indeed show up:
>>  fsa4480 1-0042: Found FSA4480 v1.1 (Vendor ID = 0)
>>
>> [1] https://www.onsemi.com/pdf/datasheet/fsa4480-d.pdf
>>
>> Fixes: 1dc246320c6b ("usb: typec: mux: Add On Semi fsa4480 driver")
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
> You can't sign off on a patch twice, that makes no sense, sorry.

I'm losing access to the @linaro.org email and want to preserve the
authorship there (as this patch was developed during work hours).

Then, the author's email doesn't match the sender's email, so I'm
expected to sign off with the sender's one.

Should I assume that the maintainer trusts me to be the same person?

Konrad