linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] serial: 8250: Move CE4100 quirks to a module under 8250 driver

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: <aGKFKOWv1xTDlhnD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:38:00 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] serial: 8250: Move CE4100 quirks to a module
 under 8250 driver

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 01:27:10PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 27. 06. 25, 20:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > There is inconvenient for maintainers and maintainership to have
> > some quirks under architectural code. Move it to the specific quirk
> > file like other 8250-compatible drivers do.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Nice.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>

Thanks, but it seems a bit late :-)

> Just two nits (one suggestion actually) below. Ignore if you won't resubmit
> for some other reasons...

Sure, see above.

...

> > +static inline void sdv_serial_fixup(void) {};
> 
> Superfluous ;.

Indeed. But I don't want to update just this (as it now may require
a separate change for x86).

...

> > -static u32 ce4100_mem_serial_in(struct uart_port *p, unsigned int offset)
> > -{
> > -	u32 ret, ier, lsr;
> > -
> > -	if (offset != UART_IIR)
> > -		return mem_serial_in(p, offset);
> > -
> > -	offset <<= p->regshift;
> > -
> > -	ret = readl(p->membase + offset);
> 
> Just noticed: why the two above lines are not one:
> ret = mem_serial_in()?
> 
> Or in fact the whole function intro:
> ret = mem_serial_in(p, offset);
> if (offset != UART_IIR)
>   return ret;

Hmm... Sounds like an equivalent. I probably can send a followup for this
suggestion.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko