linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] clk: Use str_enable

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: <Z4diEj__bbQl4ULS@standask-GA-A55M-S2HP>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 08:21:54 +0100
From: Stanislav Jakubek <stano.jakubek@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: Use str_enable_disable-like helpers

Hi Krzysztof, 1 note below.

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 08:06:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Replace ternary (condition ? "enable" : "disable") syntax with helpers
> from string_choices.h because:

[snip]

> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-nomadik.c b/drivers/clk/clk-nomadik.c
> index 06245681dac7..f3a73ac5a1b9 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-nomadik.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-nomadik.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/debugfs.h>
>  #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/string_choices.h>
>  #include <linux/reboot.h>
>  
>  /*
> @@ -116,9 +117,9 @@ static void __init nomadik_src_init(void)
>  
>  	val = readl(src_base + SRC_XTALCR);
>  	pr_info("SXTALO is %s\n",
> -		(val & SRC_XTALCR_SXTALDIS) ? "disabled" : "enabled");
> +		str_enabled_disabled(val & SRC_XTALCR_SXTALDIS));

It seems like you flipped the logic here. Was this intentional?

Regards,
Stanislav