linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 15/24] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property

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: <CAJZ5v0h=qzS67Xu6NUfN_LmQUmKF9=AtkaRrTx81td0m-mRNNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:39:30 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>, 
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>, 
	Rahul Pathak <rpathak@...tanamicro.com>, Leyfoon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>, 
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@...ux.dev>, Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>, 
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, 
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 15/24] ACPI: property: Add support for cells property

On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 1:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:16 AM Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >  static int acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > >                                           const char *propname, const char *nargs_prop,
> > >                                           unsigned int args_count, unsigned int index,
>
> > >         const struct acpi_device_data *data;
> > >         struct fwnode_handle *ref_fwnode;
> > >         struct acpi_device *device;
> > > +       unsigned int nargs_count;
> > >         int ret, idx = 0;
>
> > > +                       nargs_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
> >
> > I think it should work the same way as it used to for the callers that
> > pass args_count, so maybe
> >
> > if (!args_count)
> >         args_count = acpi_fwnode_get_args_count(device, nargs_prop);
>
> But this is different variable.

Of course it is different.  It is an acpi_fwnode_get_reference_args() parameter.

> > >                         element++;
> > > -
> > >                         ret = acpi_get_ref_args(idx == index ? args : NULL,
> > >                                                 acpi_fwnode_handle(device),
> > > -                                               &element, end, args_count);
> > > +                                               &element, end,
> > > +                                               nargs_count ? nargs_count : args_count);
> >
> > And this change would not be necessary?
>
> This is not the same check as proposed above.

No, it is not.

It just makes the function work the same way it did before the change
for the callers who passed nozero args_count and so they might be
forgiven expecting that it would be taken into account.