From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762559AbdEVU6R (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 16:58:17 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171]:35862 "EHLO mail-qk0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762544AbdEVU6P (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 16:58:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170522203818.GG8541@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <20170518143914.60902-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20170518143914.60902-3-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20170522084005.GS8541@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20170522203818.GG8541@lahna.fi.intel.com> From: Andreas Noever Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 22:57:35 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/24] thunderbolt: Do not try to read UID if DROM offset is read as 0 To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Michael Jamet , Yehezkel Bernat , Lukas Wunner , Amir Levy , Andy Lutomirski , Mario.Limonciello@dell.com, Jared.Dominguez@dell.com, Andy Shevchenko , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 08:41:22PM +0200, Andreas Noever wrote: >> Yes there is a check for the root switch, but also one that checks the >> return code of tb_drom_read_uid_only :) >> >> err = tb_drom_read_uid_only(sw, &uid); >> if (err) { >> tb_sw_warn(sw, "uid read failed\n"); >> return err; >> } >> if (sw != sw->tb->root_switch && sw->uid != uid) { >> >> >> The reason it works on the Mac is because drom_offset is not 0, so the >> new branch in tb_drom_read_uid_only is not taken. Probably this is the >> case for all Cactus Ridge models and Alpine Ridge doesn't go there >> since it uses the ICM? > > Yes in case of ICM we don't call the function at all. > >> Still it wouldn't hurt to only read the uid if >> sw != root_switch, the value is not used if sw == root_switch. > > I agree. I'll update the code so that it will only read and check UID > when we are not dealing with the root switch. Thanks, Andreas