netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bluetooth/hci

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: <a8fe49f4-09f2-2507-e652-cbbb13ed8006@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 21:58:07 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, mizo@...ark-techno.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bluetooth/hci_h4: add serdev support

On 08/11/2022 21:38, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> +static int h4_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct h4_device *h4dev;
>> +	struct hci_uart *hu;
>> +	int ret;
>> +	u32 speed;
>> +
>> +	h4dev = devm_kzalloc(&serdev->dev, sizeof(*h4dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!h4dev)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +	hu = &h4dev->hu;
>> +
>> +	hu->serdev = serdev;
>> +	ret = device_property_read_u32(&serdev->dev, "max-speed", &speed);
>> +	if (!ret) {
>> +		/* h4 does not have any baudrate handling:
>> +		 * user oper speed from the start
>> +		 */
>> +		hu->init_speed = speed;
>> +		hu->oper_speed = speed;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	serdev_device_set_drvdata(serdev, h4dev);
>> +	dev_info(&serdev->dev, "h4 device registered.\n");
> 
> It is considered bad practice to spam the logs like this. dev_dbg().
> 
>> +
>> +	return hci_uart_register_device(hu, &h4p);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void h4_remove(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct h4_device *h4dev = serdev_device_get_drvdata(serdev);
>> +
>> +	dev_info(&serdev->dev, "h4 device unregistered.\n");
> 
> dev_dbg().

I would say none of them (the same in probe). Any prints in probe/remove
paths are considered redundant, as core already gives that information.

Best regards,
Krzysztof