linux-kernel - Re: 回复: 回复: 回复: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: cix: Add pin-controller support for sky1

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: <3e0fb880-ef2a-482d-b008-9afcb46f9fec@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:21:25 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Gary Yang <gary.yang@...tech.com>,
 "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "krzk+dt@...nel.org"
 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
 "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 cix-kernel-upstream <cix-kernel-upstream@...tech.com>
Subject: Re: 回复: 回复: 回复: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: cix: Add pin-controller support for sky1

On 29/08/2025 06:33, Gary Yang wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 28/08/2025 10:32, Gary Yang wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28/08/2025 08:44, Gary Yang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +     if (ret) {
>>>>>>> +             dev_err(&pdev->dev, "fail to probe dt
>>>>>>> + properties\n");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are printing same error twice. Drop this and just handle error
>>>>>> printing in sky1_pinctrl_probe_dt().
>>>>>> Especially that you now print errors on ENOMEM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, this print message is only once, not twice, please give more
>>>>> information
>>>>
>>>> Trigger the error and check how many error messages you see. I see two.
>>>> You should know your code better than me...
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are two pin-controller on sky1. They share the same driver. The probe
>> is called twice.
>>>
>>> So we see the print message twice.
>>
>>
>> No, you don't really understand how this works. Test your code and its error
>> paths and you will see FOR ONE BIND more than one error message.
>> Plus my second comment which you completely ignored.
>>
>> I am sorry, but this is basic C.
>>
> 
> In order to trigger a error, we add a sentence in sky1_pinctrl_probe_dt() as follow:
> 
> static int sky1_pinctrl_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
>                                  struct sky1_pinctrl *spctl)
> {
> 
> +         return -ENODEV;
>           .......
> }
> 
> dmesg shows as following:
> 
> [    0.812780] /soc@...inctrl@...0000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc@...inctrl@...0000/hog-pins
> [    0.821920] sky1-pinctrl 4170000.pinctrl: fail to probe dt properties
> [    0.828503] /soc@...inctrl@...07000: Fixed dependency cycle(s) with /soc@...inctrl@...07000/hog-s5-pins
> [    0.838058] sky1-pinctrl 16007000.pinctrl: fail to probe dt properties
> 
> I don't see the error message twice per one. There are two pin-controller. One is /soc@...inctrl@...0000. Other is /soc@...inctrl@...07000.

And the next error case from sky1_pinctrl_probe_dt? ... and then the
next one? And another one?

Really, either you didn't read your own code or you just push the same
poor code, regardless of review, because you want it to get merged?

This will lead you nowhere.

You have:

+static int sky1_pinctrl_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
+				struct sky1_pinctrl *spctl)
...
+		if (!function)
+			return -ENOMEM;
...
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "fail to probe dt properties\n");
+		return ret;
+	}

That's a clear NAK.

Then you have:

+		if (nfuncs == 0) {
+			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no functions defined\n");
+			return -EINVAL;
...
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "fail to probe dt properties\n");
+		return ret;
+	}

that's useless duplicated message. TWICE.

You could easily spot it yourself instead of keep bugging the reviewer
for such trivial stuff.

NAK, please remember to never waste reviewers time.

> 
> So you see the twice, once per one pin-controller. BTW as you suggested before, we will print the value of ret in the error message.
> 
> If I miss any information, please kindly remind me. Thanks

You still ignored my second comment.


Best regards,
Krzysztof