linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: ti: ti-iodelay: Fix some error handling paths + 2 unrelated clean-ups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdbp4HhXNutMgA-tBbQSzzO0zq9Tia3WS_fXNtgJ6Xr8ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:23:28 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: lokeshvutla@...com, nm@...com, robh@...nel.org, tony@...mide.com, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: ti: ti-iodelay: Fix some error handling
 paths + 2 unrelated clean-ups

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:37 PM Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:

> The first patch is completly speculative. It is based on static analysis
> when a function is called in the remove() function, but not in the
> error handling path of the probe.
> When looking deeper at it, it seems that part of
> ti_iodelay_pinconf_init_dev() also needed to be fixed.
>
> /!\ This is completly speculative. So review with care /!\
>
>
> Patch 2 and 3 are just constification patches spoted while looking at
> the code.
>
> Christophe JAILLET (3):
>   pinctrl: ti: ti-iodelay: Fix some error handling paths
>   pinctrl: ti: ti-iodelay: Constify struct ti_iodelay_reg_data
>   pinctrl: ti: ti-iodelay: Constify struct regmap_config

Patches 1 & 2 applied, patch 3 was already contributed by
another developer.

Yours,
Linus Walleij