linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 11/12] PCI: exynos: Add support for Tesla FSD SoC

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: <20250819150727.GA586493@bhelgaas>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 10:07:27 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Shradha Todi <shradha.t@...sung.com>
Cc: 'Krzysztof Kozlowski' <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, mani@...nel.org,
	lpieralisi@...nel.org, kwilczynski@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, jingoohan1@...il.com, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, vkoul@...nel.org,
	kishon@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
	jh80.chung@...sung.com, pankaj.dubey@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/12] PCI: exynos: Add support for Tesla FSD SoC

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 05:09:34PM +0530, Shradha Todi wrote:
> ...

> > Another question about the test:
> > 
> >   if ((val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE) == FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE) {
> > 
> > This assumes there are no other bits in FSD_IRQ2_STS that could be
> > set.  I would have expected a test like this:
> > 
> >   if (val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE) {
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE is a single-bit, so there
> is no functional difference in the two statements. I didn't have a specific
> reason for using "== FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE".
> But I see that "val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE" would have been the more
> standard way to write this. I will update this for clarity.

Oof, sorry, I don't know what I was thinking.  You're right, it's OK
as is.  But "val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE" *is* shorter and more
idiomatic, so I think preferable anyway.

Bjorn