On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:18:36 +0200
Cristian Stoica <cristian.sto...@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 08:22 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:57:33 +0200
> > Cristian Stoica <cristian.sto...@freescale.com> wrote:
> >
> > If this issue was brought up by h/w, the appropriate new error codes
> > should be being introduced.
>
> If you have the new error codes please send them to me and I'll make an
> update.
I was mainly inquiring as to the motive of the patch. fwiw, I don't
see error codes with the most significant bit set in the latest
documentation (which is available from STC).
> > Otherwise, I'm assuming it was brought up by a static code analyser,
> > which technically could be ignored, but...
>
> Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.
ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.
> >> - /*
> >> - * If there is no further error handling function, just
> >> - * print the error code, error string and exit. Otherwise
> >> - * call the handler function.
> >> - */
> >
> > why remove the comment? It's still valid.
>
> The comment was disagreeing with the new code, so I just removed it.
the new code just added a new condition, which doesn't invalidate
the comment. And simply removing the comment as opposed to amending
it is a bit overkill.
> >> - if (!status_src[ssrc].report_ssed)
> >> - dev_err(jrdev, "%08x: %s: \n", status, status_src[ssrc].error);
> >> - else
> >> + if (status_src[ssrc].report_ssed)
> >> status_src[ssrc].report_ssed(jrdev, status, error);
> >> + else if (error)
> >> + dev_err(jrdev, "%d: %s\n", ssrc, error);
> >> + else
> >> + dev_err(jrdev, "%d: unknown error code\n", ssrc);
> >
> > This is simpler:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/caam/error.c b/drivers/crypto/caam/error.c
> > index 6531054..6f4a148 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/caam/error.c
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/caam/error.c
> > @@ -224,7 +224,12 @@ void caam_jr_strstatus(struct device *jrdev, u32
> > status)
> > { report_cond_code_status, "Condition Code" },
> > };
> > u32 ssrc = status >> JRSTA_SSRC_SHIFT;
> > - const char *error = status_src[ssrc].error;
> > + const char *error;
> > +
> > + if (ssrc >= ARRAY_SIZE(status_src)) {
> > + dev_err(jrdev, "unknown error status source %d\n", ssrc);
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> It is indeed simpler but does it consider also the missing error codes
> at index 1 and 5? Just checking for an upper bound is not enough.
no, the existing code already handles that. Note that newer
documentation fills the 1 and 5 slots, too.
> On the other hand, if the error field is only three bits wide instead of
> four as stated by the documentation, a better fix means using a three
> bit mask instead of reporting an invalid error code.
true, but then we'd introduce a direct discrepancy with the
documentation, and thus h/w.
Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
