linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] reset: replace boolean parameters with flags parameter

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: <e4319d3b058b8c90436b4401449e028f5e6c209e.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:43:03 +0200
From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Lad Prabhakar
 <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,  Geert Uytterhoeven
 <geert+renesas@...der.be>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,  kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] reset: replace boolean parameters with flags
 parameter

Hi Uwe,

On Mi, 2024-09-25 at 16:25 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Philipp,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 06:17:11PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > On Sa, 2024-06-22 at 09:47 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > @@ -999,8 +1001,9 @@ static struct reset_controller_dev *__reset_find_rcdev(const struct of_phandle_a
> > > >  
> > > >  struct reset_control *
> > > >  __of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node, const char *id, int index,
> > > > -		       bool shared, bool optional, bool acquired)
> > > > +		       enum reset_control_flags flags)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	bool optional = flags & RESET_CONTROL_FLAGS_BIT_OPTIONAL;
> > > >  	bool gpio_fallback = false;
> > > >  	struct reset_control *rstc;
> > > >  	struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev;
> > > > @@ -1065,7 +1068,7 @@ __of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node, const char *id, int index,
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* reset_list_mutex also protects the rcdev's reset_control list */
> > > > -	rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, rstc_id, shared, acquired);
> > > > +	rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, rstc_id, flags);
> > > 
> > > If RESET_CONTROL_FLAGS_BIT_OPTIONAL was passed to
> > > __of_reset_control_get(), you're forwarding it to
> > > __reset_control_get_internal(). But the latter doesn't do anything with
> > > that flag. I wonder if the API would be still less prone to error if
> > > you'd filter out RESET_CONTROL_FLAGS_BIT_OPTIONAL before passing to
> > > __reset_control_get_internal() and in __reset_control_get_internal() add
> > > a check for unsupported flags.
> > 
> > Yes, I'll do that. For every enum value with the optional bit set,
> > there is a corresponding value without it.
> 
> Do you have this still on your todo list? I just review a pwm driver
> that would benefit from devm_reset_control_get_exclusive_deasserted().

Thanks for the reminder, just sent a v2.

regards
Philipp