From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D348650AC2C; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 12:55:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791982551; cv=none; b=DPYIem4t+OL40m7l9gtlFaxtCOYfZc11vvvEa1sSKuTeZt2L//eXdL7k4An24nM748c6XSmerVUAvZUX8D3xmXu9u94kXAzo5mfBlKoEpE5pnS6DGbnf93P3hLB7sX4f5G7gkYiMyHOu8yXw1Bs3hz8cAQEWgpLA78vcZ7NgVQQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791982551; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/CCnmFYSzXO7rsKAhnM/B82XpebemkUwfZSROrHSshE=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=UzByQmcLeOW9uambvDlEfJt79GrZkHDKrIV5qSkt33pPViw1QIB4BPFFFCyPMI52HkYPs8fag3VhT6raMichsk3FLpWJa1zTbinmm5EVEeWS+0RfLOYEvfrPBn8nPYGU+IBOJ9qh7AzJhz7/jdTUSCN28FyEwt/FLxqg+oMmoSg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=DkKSdMNZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="DkKSdMNZ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=/CCnmFYSzXO7rsKAhnM/B82XpebemkUwfZSROrHSshE=; t=1791982542; x=1793192142; b=DkKSdMNZk+DkTRLAuaB5w3m9cFybOfid2HrFS8UgglRTfzl cxPAIDCSMP8xQhTTdf+CGLfO53H0kcjeGxhEia2dibnTUfwpd7rZgOoSD1R/RWBFlaVOo7j/+NTcM pZQ7/yGihPeiNsLuF8Ypn7zuzMjy+u8r+X/Y32/PgmIcQjK2/rP46TQ7pPcm1nK8k1+sQ1387Tqj0 TodTJafXrJOI+lUKpmf51xOIrR2HnkvBntt+4Z9htM5drbghyUo+u6A588hU70m3iKWUmO8OPZZW9 jaOkyIdmK2FL+yqiJo+1I1azYmGw7qRsXmq53C4nJIEKOyc8rWpCnFnm6z7LDrxA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xGyW9-00000001Xtv-206Y; Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:55:37 +0200 Message-ID: <3d2fde6558449d82dec7c9eef8cb4c6e4e464dc8.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH iwlwifi-next] wifi: iwlwifi: pcie: return a real errno from read_config32() From: Johannes Berg To: Yogesh Gaur , miriam.rachel.korenblit@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 14:55:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20261014124357.2569535-1-yogesh.gaur@intel.com> References: <20261014124357.2569535-1-yogesh.gaur@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-2.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Wed, 2026-10-14 at 18:13 +0530, Yogesh Gaur wrote: > pci_read_config_dword() can also return a positive PCIBIOS_* error code > (e.g. PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND for a disconnected device), but > iwl_trans_pcie_read_config32() passes it through unchanged and > iwl_dump_ini_config_iter() only checks for ret < 0. The error is missed, > so the loop keeps reading and stores 0xffffffff in the dump. >=20 > Convert the return value with pcibios_err_to_errno(). >=20 This isn't incorrect, but is it a good idea? I'm not convinced, we might still get some other parts of the dump vs. just aborting the entire section at that point? IOW, _why_ are you doing this? Do you have a problem with it? What is that problem? Is it just a static checker/LLM complaint that you want to fix? johannes