linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] pinctrl: stm32: Add check for clk

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

Message-ID: <01c0ce6be637669ed07cfaf0aa6ef27fed7b8b16.camel@foss.st.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:15:15 +0100
From: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@...s.st.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, Mingwei Zheng <zmw12306@...il.com>
CC: <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, <make24@...as.ac.cn>,
        <peng.fan@....com>, <fabien.dessenne@...s.st.com>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiasheng Jiang <jiashengjiangcool@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] pinctrl: stm32: Add check for clk_enable()

On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 00:41 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/15/24 9:40 PM, Mingwei Zheng wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -1617,10 +1602,18 @@ int stm32_pctl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >         }
> >         pctl->banks = devm_kcalloc(dev, banks, sizeof(*pctl->banks),
> > -                       GFP_KERNEL);
> > +                                  GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Please drop this one change.
> 
> >         if (!pctl->banks)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >   
> > +       pctl->clks = devm_kcalloc(dev, banks, sizeof(*pctl->clks),
> > +                                 GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       if (!pctl->clks)
> > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < banks; ++i)
> > +               pctl->clks[i].id = "";
> 
> Is this ^ assignment necessary ? If so, why ?

The existing DTs don't have the 'clock-names' property, whose value is used to set this struct clk_bulk_data::id.
With this field kept at NULL, the error messages in clk_bulk_enable() and similar should print '(null)'.
This line sets it to empty string.
I would say it's not necessary, but I don't know if it's better to have:
"Failed to enable clk '': %d"
or
"Failed to enable clk '(null)': %d"

Antonio