linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool

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: <cce60805-55e5-4fb8-9f71-7afcc496c689@163.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 16:21:19 +0800
From: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
To: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 jingoohan1@...il.com, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return
 bool



On 2025/4/29 16:05, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Hello Hans,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 01:10:25AM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
>> Modify link_up functions across multiple DWC PCIe controllers to return
>> bool instead of int. Simplify conditional checks by directly returning
>> logical evaluations. This improves code clarity and aligns with PCIe
>> status semantics.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c       | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c       | 4 ++--
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c     | 5 ++---
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c        | 6 +++---
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-armada8k.c    | 6 +++---
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  | 4 ++--
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-histb.c       | 9 +++------
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c     | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-kirin.c       | 7 ++-----
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c     | 4 ++--
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c        | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c   | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-spear13xx.c   | 7 ++-----
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c    | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c    | 2 +-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-visconti.c    | 2 +-
>>   18 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c
>> index 33d6bf460ffe..4ef25d14312b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c
>> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static u64 dra7xx_pcie_cpu_addr_fixup(struct dw_pcie *pci, u64 cpu_addr)
>>   	return cpu_addr & DRA7XX_CPU_TO_BUS_ADDR;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static int dra7xx_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>> +static bool dra7xx_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>>   {
>>   	struct dra7xx_pcie *dra7xx = to_dra7xx_pcie(pci);
>>   	u32 reg = dra7xx_pcie_readl(dra7xx, PCIECTRL_DRA7XX_CONF_PHY_CS);
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c
>> index ace736b025b1..d4a25d376b11 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c
>> @@ -209,12 +209,12 @@ static struct pci_ops exynos_pci_ops = {
>>   	.write = exynos_pcie_wr_own_conf,
>>   };
>>   
>> -static int exynos_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>> +static bool exynos_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>>   {
>>   	struct exynos_pcie *ep = to_exynos_pcie(pci);
>>   	u32 val = exynos_pcie_readl(ep->elbi_base, PCIE_ELBI_RDLH_LINKUP);
>>   
>> -	return (val & PCIE_ELBI_XMLH_LINKUP);
>> +	return !!(val & PCIE_ELBI_XMLH_LINKUP);
> 
> !! is not needed here, or in other places.
> 
> When assigning to the bool any non-zero value becomes 1.
> 
> !! is usually only needed when needing to store an explicit 1 or 0 in an int.
> 

Dear Niklas,

Thank you very much for your reply and reminder. The next version will 
be modified.

Best regards,
Hans