> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 8:40 PM
> To: Pascal Van Leeuwen <[email protected]>
> Cc: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>; David S. Miller
> <[email protected]>; Antoine
> Tenart <[email protected]>; Ard Biesheuvel
> <[email protected]>; Kees Cook
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: inside-secure - fix uninitialized-variable
> warning
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:08 PM Pascal Van Leeuwen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > config CRYPTO_DEV_SAFEXCEL
> > > tristate "Inside Secure's SafeXcel cryptographic engine driver"
> > > - depends on OF || PCI || COMPILE_TEST
> > > + depends on OF || PCI
> > >
> >
> > This seems like it just ignores the problem by not allowing compile testing
> > anymore? Somehow that does not feel right ...
>
> No, it just ignores the uninteresting case. You can compile-test this on
> any architecture by turning on OF.
>
You are entirely correct. Because of the COMPILE_TEST it could be compiled
without either OF or PCI support, which makes no sense whatsoever ...
> > > select CRYPTO_LIB_AES
> > > select CRYPTO_AUTHENC
> > > select CRYPTO_BLKCIPHER
> > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c
> > > b/drivers/crypto/inside-
> > > secure/safexcel.c
> > > index e12a2a3a5422..9c0bce77de14 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c
> > > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ static int safexcel_request_ring_irq(void *pdev, int
> > > irqid,
> > > struct device *dev;
> > >
> > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI) && is_pci_dev) {
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
> > >
> >
> > The whole point was NOT to use regular #ifdefs such that the code can
> > be compile tested without needing to switch configurations.
> > There is already a different solution in the works involving some empty
> > inline stubs for those pci routines, please see an earlier mail by Herbert
> > titled "PCI: Add stub pci_irq_vector and others".
>
> Ah, good. That should take care of most of the problems. I think
> we still need the Kconfig change, unless the safexcel_init()
> function is also changed to use if(IS_ENABLED()) checks
> instead of #if.
>
> Arnd
>
Yes, I agree.
Regards,
Pascal van Leeuwen
Silicon IP Architect, Multi-Protocol Engines @ Verimatrix
www.insidesecure.com
