Re: [PATCH] counter: stm32-lptimer-cnt: fix the check on arr and cmp registers update

[William Breathitt Gray]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:56:31PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> On 11/22/22 08:33, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 02:27:50AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:36:09PM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> >>> The ARR (auto reload register) and CMP (compare) registers are
> >>> successively written. The status bits to check the update of these
> >>> registers are polled together with regmap_read_poll_timeout().
> >>> The condition to end the loop may become true, even if one of the register
> >>> isn't correctly updated.
> >>> So ensure both status bits are set before clearing them.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: d8958824cf07 ("iio: counter: Add support for STM32 LPTimer")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c b/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c
> >>> index d6b80b6dfc28..8439755559b2 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/counter/stm32-lptimer-cnt.c
> >>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static int stm32_lptim_set_enable_state(struct stm32_lptim_cnt *priv,
> >>>  
> >>>  	/* ensure CMP & ARR registers are properly written */
> >>>  	ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(priv->regmap, STM32_LPTIM_ISR, val,
> >>> -				       (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK),
> >>> +				       (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK) == STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK,
> >>
> >> This is a reasonable fix, but I don't like seeing so much happening in
> >> an argument list -- it's easy to misunderstand what's going on which can
> >> lead to further bugs the future. Pull out this condition to a dedicated
> >> bool variable with a comment explaining why we need the equivalence
> >> check (i.e. to ensure both status bits are set and not just one).
> >>
> >> William Breathitt Gray
> > 
> > Alternatively, you could pull out just (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK)
> > to a separate variable and keep the equivalence condition inline if you
> > think it'll be clearer that way.
> 
> Hi William,
> 
> I'm not sure to fully understand your proposal here.
> Could you clarify ?
> 
> regmap_read_poll_timeout() macro requires:
> 
>  * @val: Unsigned integer variable to read the value into
>  * @cond: Break condition (usually involving @val)
> 
> So do you wish I introduce a macro that abstracts the condition check ?
> (val & STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK) == STM32_LPTIM_CMPOK_ARROK
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Fabrice

My apologies Fabrice, I realize now that regmap_read_poll_timeout() is a
macro. Abstracting out the conditional would probably be more confusing
than having it inline, so the way it is right now is probably fine after
all.

William Breathitt Gray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature