linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] PCI: qcom: Refactor common code

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: <20240821173318.GA260075@bhelgaas>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:33:18 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata <quic_schintav@...cinc.com>
Cc: agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
	mani@...nel.org, quic_msarkar@...cinc.com,
	quic_kraravin@...cinc.com,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
	Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
	Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
	Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] PCI: qcom: Refactor common code

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:08:42AM -0700, Shashank Babu Chinta Venkata wrote:
> Refactor common code from RC(Root Complex) and EP(End Point)
> drivers and move them to a common driver. This acts as placeholder
> for common source code for both drivers, thus avoiding duplication.

Much of this seems to be replacing qcom_pcie_icc_opp_update() and
qcom_pcie_ep_icc_update() with qcom_pcie_common_icc_update().

That seems worthwhile and it would be helpful if the commit log called
that out so we'd know what to look for in the patch.

I think the qcom_pcie_common_icc_init() rework would be more
understandable if it were in its own patch and not mixed in here.

> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-common.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2014-2015, 2020 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> + * Copyright (c) 2015, 2021 Linaro Limited.
> + * Copyright (c) 2024 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
> + *

Spurious blank line.

> + */

> +struct icc_path *qcom_pcie_common_icc_get_resource(struct dw_pcie *pci, const char *path)
> +{
> +	struct icc_path *icc_p;
> +
> +	icc_p = devm_of_icc_get(pci->dev, path);
> +	return icc_p;

  return devm_of_icc_get(pci->dev, path);

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_pcie_common_icc_get_resource);
> +
> +int qcom_pcie_common_icc_init(struct dw_pcie *pci, struct icc_path *icc, u32 bandwidth)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = icc_set_bw(icc, 0, bandwidth);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(pci->dev, "Failed to set interconnect bandwidth: %d\n",
> +			ret);
> +		return ret;
> +	}

The callers also check and log similar messages.  I don't see the
point.

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_pcie_common_icc_init);

These both seem of dubious value.

> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-common.h

Do we need "-common" in the filename?  Seems like "pcie-qcom.h" would
be enough.  I *hope* we don't someday need both a "pcie-qcom.h and a
"pcie-qcom-common.h"; that seems like it would really be overkill.

Bjorn