Re: [PATCH v9 03/20] platform/x86/intel/pmt: refactor rc with a return value

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] pmt: incomplete refactoring of pmt_crashlog_supported return type
--

commit 6d60cc557787aac9b9d1c6b547f8f188b34dd10b
Author: Michael J. Ruhl <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>

platform/x86/intel/pmt: refactor rc with a return value

Upcoming changes will include possible failures from HW accesses.
Refactor pmt_crashlog_rw() with a return value.
Update all necessary usage to use the return code.

> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/crashlog.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/crashlog.c
> index 831cff743803e..b6540f3a9a17c 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/crashlog.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmt/crashlog.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -144,27 +144,29 @@ static int pmt_crashlog_rmw(struct crashlog_entry *crashlog, u32 bit, bool set)
[ ... ]
> -static bool pmt_crashlog_supported(struct intel_pmt_entry *entry, u32 *crash_type, u32 *version)
> +static int pmt_crashlog_supported(struct intel_pmt_entry *entry, u32 *crash_type, u32 *version)
>  {
>  	u32 discovery_header = readl(entry->disc_table + CONTROL_OFFSET);
>  

[Severity: Low]
Does this code leave pmt_crashlog_supported() returning boolean values
despite the return type change?

Looking at pmt_crashlog_supported(), it still returns true or false
instead of an error code:

    if (*crash_type == CRASH_TYPE_OOBMSM && (*version == 0 || *version == 2))
        return true;

    return false;

If hardware access error codes like -EIO are later added as mentioned
in the commit message, will callers using !pmt_crashlog_supported()
incorrectly evaluate negative error codes as truthy and mask the error?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260916201139.2374531-22-michael.j.ruhl@intel.com?part=3