Re: [PATCH v2 net 0/5] net: ipa: minor bug fixes

[Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>]

On 10/30/20 7:23 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:50:52 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
>> On 10/29/20 11:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:41:43 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:  
>>>> This series fixes several bugs.  They are minor, in that the code
>>>> currently works on supported platforms even without these patches
>>>> applied, but they're bugs nevertheless and should be fixed.  
>>>
>>> By which you mean "it seems to work just fine most of the time" or "the
>>> current code does not exercise this paths/functionally these bugs don't
>>> matter for current platforms".  
>>
>> The latter, although for patch 3 I'm not 100% sure.
>>
>> Case by case:
>> Patch 1:
>>    It works.  I inquired what the consequence of passing this
>>    wrong buffer pointer was, and for the way we are using IPA
>>    it seems it's fine--the memory pointer we were assigning is
>>    not used, so it's OK.  But we're assigning the wrong pointer.
>> Patch 2:
>>    It works.  Even though the bit field is 1 bit wide (not two)
>>    we never actually write a value greater than 1, so we don't
>>    cause a problem.  But the definition is incorrect.
>> Patch 3:
>>    It works, but on the SDM845 we should be assigning the endpoints
>>    to use resource group 1 (they are 0 by default).  The way we
>>    currently use this upstream we don't have other endpoints
>>    competing for resources, so I think this is fine.  SC7180 we
>>    will assign endpoints to resource group 0, which is the default.
>> Patch 4:
>>    It works.  This is like patch 2; we define the number of these
>>    things incorrectly, but the way we currently use them we never
>>    exceed the limit in a broken way.
>> Patch 5:
>>    It works.  The maximum number of supported groups is even,
>>    and if a (smaller) odd number are used the remainder are
>>    programmed with 0, which is appropriate for undefined
>>    fields.
>>
>> If you have any concerns about back-porting these fixes I
>> think I'm comfortable posting them for net-next instead.
>> I debated that before sending them out.  Please request that
>> if it's what you think would be best.
> 
> Looks like these patches apply cleanly to net-next, so I put them there.
> 
> Thanks!

Works for me.  Thank you.	-Alex

>