Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] PCI: rockchip: fix sign issues for current limits
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
References: <20170310024617.67303-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
 <20170323222717.GD23612@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20170323223348.GA102312@google.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>,
        Wenrui Li <wenrui.li@rock-chips.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
From: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
Message-ID: <15b1b27c-1832-ff41-a9e8-31f71af1d64f@rock-chips.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:24:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170323223348.GA102312@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1785
Lines: 53

Hi Bjorn,

On 2017/3/24 6:33, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:27:17PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 06:46:13PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> The regulator framework can return negative error codes via
>>> regulator_get_current_limit() for regulators that don't provide current
>>> information. The subsequent check for postive values isn't very useful,
>>> if the variable is unsigned.
>>>
>>> Let's just match the signedness of the return value.
>>>
>>> Prevents error messages like this, seen on Samsung Chromebook Plus:
>>>
>>> [    1.069372] rockchip-pcie f8000000.pcie: invalid power supply
>>>
>>> Fixes: 4816c4c7b82b ("PCI: rockchip: Provide captured slot power limit and scale")
>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
>>> Acked-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
>>
>> I applied the first two patches (this already has Shawn's ack and the
>> second is trivially obvious) to pci/host-rockchip.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> I'm not sure what the
>> current state of the others is.
>
> Patch 4 seems like it should be fine (it was discussed previously, but
> never done).

I'm fine with the other pacthes and fully tested it, but I was just
waiting for your decision for patch 4, so at least,

Acked-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> for pcie-rockchip.


>
> Apart from existing leaks in the PCI framework (which Jeffy and Shawn
> are trying to patch [1]), I don't think there are any known issues with
> 3 and 5. It's certainly better than having 100% broken unbind at least,
> IMO.
>
> I suppose it's worth getting an ack/nack from Shawn though.
>
> Brian
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9638353/
>     https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9640545/
>     https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9640549/
>
>
>