On 2/6/2023 7:41 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
On 2/2/23 6:46 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
+ ret = gh_rm_call(rm, message_id, &req_payload,
sizeof(req_payload), &resp, &resp_size);
+ if (!ret && resp_size) {
Am struggling to understand these type of checks in success case, when
a command is not expecting any response why are we checking for
response here, This sounds like a bug in either RM or hypervisor.
Or Is this something that happens due to some firmware behaviour?
Could you elobrate on this.
What I think you're talking about is error checking even when
it's very clear something "can't happen." It's a pattern I've
seen in Qualcomm downstream code, and I believe sometimes it
is done as "best practice" to avoid warnings from security scans.
(I might be wrong about this though.)
That's right reasoning.
I think your underlying point though is that we can just assume
success means "truly successful," so there's no reason to do any
additional sanity checks. We *assume* the hardware is doing the
correct thing (if it's not, we might as well assume it does
*nothing* right). >
So as a very general statement, I think all checks of this type
should go away (and I think Srini would agree).
I'll remove the checks.
