linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 phy 02/16] phy: lynx-28g: refactor lane probing to lynx_28g_probe

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: <20251117185734.hgeclxizxmnvlaxr@skbuf>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:57:34 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
	Josua Mayer <josua@...id-run.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 phy 02/16] phy: lynx-28g: refactor lane probing to
 lynx_28g_probe_lane()

Hi Vinod,

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 06:56:46PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:19:55PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 10-11-25, 11:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-lynx-28g.c b/drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-lynx-28g.c
> > > index c20d2636c5e9..901240bbcade 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-lynx-28g.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/phy/freescale/phy-fsl-lynx-28g.c
> > > @@ -579,12 +579,33 @@ static struct phy *lynx_28g_xlate(struct device *dev,
> > >  	return priv->lane[idx].phy;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static int lynx_28g_probe_lane(struct lynx_28g_priv *priv, int id,
> > > +			       struct device_node *dn)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct lynx_28g_lane *lane = &priv->lane[id];
> > > +	struct phy *phy;
> > > +
> > > +	memset(lane, 0, sizeof(*lane));
> > 
> > priv is kzalloc, so why memset here?
> 
> Great question, but this is a pattern that was pre-existing in the code,
> and I don't like modifying code as I move it. I had to put a stop
> somewhere (series is already 16 patch long). I can absolutely remove the
> memset in part 2 once this one is merged.

Do you have any other comments? I'd like to know what your plans are
with this set.