Hi Kim,

quoted

Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.

ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.

Are you saying the code isn't broken _because_ a static tool analyser
did not see anything wrong here?

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.

You are partially right, but will the staggering lack of comments in the
caam driver be fixed by duplicating a cascade of three ifs into english?

quoted

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.

If you have the new error codes please send them to me for an update.

quoted

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.

You basically ask me to agree that if there are no _documented_ error
codes between 0x8 and 0xf then I should trust that they will never come
up on a 4 bit field.

Do you want me to drop the patch and pretend there is nothing to see?


Cristian S.