Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: meson: Constify some structure

From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
To: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, neil.armstrong@linaro.org,
	khilman@baylibre.com, martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: meson: Constify some structure
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:08:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c8eca123-8ca8-4dfc-acc6-3e196ff0c844@wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1jy158xvwz.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>

Le 07/08/2024 à 16:14, Jerome Brunet a écrit :
> On Wed 07 Aug 2024 at 11:30, Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
>> These 3 patches constify some structures in order to move some data to a
>> read-only section, so increase overall security.
>>
>> It is splitted in 3 to ease review.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure it eases review in this case.
> If a v2 is necessary, I think a single patch would be better.
> 
>> Patch 1: struct meson_pmx_group and meson_pmx_func
>> patch 2: struct meson_bank
>> patch 3: struct meson_pmx_bank
> 
> Is there any reason for leaving out 'struct meson_pinctrl_data' and
> 'struct meson_axg_pmx_data' ? I don't think they get modified but maybe
> I missed it.

No good reasons.

I'll send a v2 with everything constified all at once.

Should I take the R-b and T-b below, for the v2?

Thanks for the review and comment.

CJ

> 
>>
>> All patches are only compile tested.
> 
> Looks good anyway
> Reviewed-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
> 
> On the vim3l:
> Tested-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-amlogic mailing list
linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic