linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] phy: can-transceiver: Re-instate "mux-states" property presence check

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: <cd6bab58-592b-43de-a0c5-b1c01d99e1c2@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:22:22 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-can@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
 Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
 Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>,
 Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] phy: can-transceiver: Re-instate "mux-states" property
 presence check

On 21/03/2025 at 13:18, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> On 21/03/2025 at 00:15, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On the Renesas Gray Hawk Single development board:
>>
>>     can-transceiver-phy can-phy0: /can-phy0: failed to get mux-state (0)
>>
>> "mux-states" is an optional property for CAN transceivers.  However,
>> mux_get() always prints an error message in case of an error, including
>> when the property is not present, confusing the user.
>>
>> Fix this by re-instating the property presence check (this time using
>> the proper API) in a wrapper around devm_mux_state_get().  When the
>> multiplexer subsystem gains support for optional muxes, the wrapper can
>> just be removed.
>>
>> In addition, propagate all real errors upstream, instead of ignoring
>> them.
> 
> I would like to hear Rob's opinion on this. In d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 Rob
> purposely changed the function to ignore errors other than EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
> Right now, I do not see a reason not to propagate the other errors, so
> I am in favor of this roll back. But maybe we are missing something?
> 
> Otherwise, the patch looks good to me. Nice improvement over the v1. I
> will wait for Rob's comment to give my review tag.

One week has gone, and we did not hear back. So let's assume it is OK.

>> Fixes: d02dfd4ceb2e9f34 ("phy: can-transceiver: Drop unnecessary "mux-states" property presence check")
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>

Reviewed-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>

(...)

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol