linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: rockchip-host: comment danger of 5.0 GT/s speed

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: <aRhQMRjffbeCeArE@geday>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:04:33 -0300
From: Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@...il.com>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: rockchip-host: comment danger of 5.0 GT/s speed

On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 11:01:21AM +0100, Dragan Simic wrote:
> On Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:51 CET, Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 10:30:49AM +0100, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > > Looking good to me, thanks for this patch!  There's no need
> > > to emit warnings here, because they'd be emitted already in
> > > the rockchip_pcie_parse_dt() function.
> > > 
> > > Please feel free to include
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
> > >
> > 
> > I disagree, I think the comment stands.
> > 
> > Even if we reduce to one line, ex:
> > 
> > + May cause damage
> 
> Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so let me clarify a bit.  The
> comment you added is fine, I just referred to no need for emitting
> a warning at that point, because it would be emitted already.

OK, I get it now so I think it's time to send v2 with all that in mind
:)

Thanks,
Geraldo Nascimento