netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] can: Add Nuvoton NCT6694 CANFD support

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: <CAOoeyxWivAZmZPe92+_LrL-HvMn7Lqs7M4B__JULKqHeJMTioA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:24:38 +0800
From: Ming Yu <a0282524688@...il.com>
To: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, tmyu0@...oton.com, 
	lee@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, 
	andi.shyti@...nel.org, mkl@...gutronix.de, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, 
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux@...ck-us.net, jdelvare@...e.com, 
	alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] can: Add Nuvoton NCT6694 CANFD support

Dear Vincent,

Thank you for reviewing,
I will address the issues you mentioned in the next patch.

Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> 於 2025年1月26日 週日 下午4:47寫道：
>
...
> > +static int nct6694_can_get_clock(struct nct6694_can_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > +     struct nct6694_can_information *info;
> > +     struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd = {
>
> If the variable only has constant initializer, make it static const:
>
>         static const struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd = {
>
> Apply this at other locations in your different modules.
>
> > +             .mod = NCT6694_CAN_MOD,
> > +             .cmd = NCT6694_CAN_INFORMATION,
> > +             .sel = NCT6694_CAN_INFORMATION_SEL,
> > +             .len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(*info))
> > +     };
> > +     int ret, can_clk;
> > +
> > +     info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     if (!info)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +

Excuse me, I would like to confirm, if the variable is constant
initializer, should the declaration be written as:
static const struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd = {
    .mod = NCT6694_CAN_MOD,
    .cmd = NCT6694_CAN_INFORMATION,
    .sel = NCT6694_CAN_INFORMATION_SEL,
    .len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(struct nct6694_can_information))
};
instead of:
static const struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd = {
    .mod = NCT6694_CAN_MOD,
    .cmd = NCT6694_CAN_INFORMATION,
    .sel = NCT6694_CAN_INFORMATION_SEL,
    .len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(*info))
};
, correct?

In addition, does this mean that the parameter in nct6694_read_msg()
and nct6694_write_msg() should be changed to const struct
nct6694_cmd_header *cmd_hd?


Best regards,
Ming