linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: max77686: Add support for MAX20024/MAX77620 RTC IP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:45:08 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>, <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
CC:	<cw00.choi@...sung.com>, <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <javier@....samsung.com>,
	<rklein@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: max77686: Add support for MAX20024/MAX77620
 RTC IP


On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:28 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29.02.2016 21:58, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> +	.alarm_pending_status_reg = MAX77620_RTC_ALARM_PENDING_STATUS_REG,
> Just skip the alarm_pending_status_reg (so it will be 0x0) and check for
> non-zero value later?
>
> It might be a little bit non consistent approach to how we map RTC
> registers (REG_RTC_NONE)... so I don't have strong feelings about this.

I choose -1 because 0 is also valid.
So I can have macro for INVALID register which is -1 and use here, other 
places direct register as STATUS2.


>
>> +	if (info->drv_data->rtc_irq_from_platform) {
>> +		struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(info->dev);
>> +
>> +		info->rtc_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> It may return -ERRNO. What happens then?

MFD is initializing the irq and so it will not fail on this particular case.
Even if error, the regmap_add_irq should fail.

Let me handle error at this point only to avoid any assumption and 
further processing with error, by returning error.


>
>> +	} else {
>> +		info->rtc_irq =  parent_i2c->irq;
>> +	}
>>   
>>   	info->regmap = dev_get_regmap(parent, NULL);
>>   	if (!info->regmap) {
>> @@ -802,6 +840,8 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77686_rtc_pm_ops,
>>   static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
>>   	{ "max77686-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77686_drv_data, },
>>   	{ "max77802-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77802_drv_data, },
>> +	{ "max77620-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77620_drv_data, },
>> +	{ "max20024-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77620_drv_data, },
> There shouldn't be "max20024-rtc". This is exactly the same as
> "max77620-rtc" so re-use existing id. No point of duplicating device
> names for 100% compatible devices.
>
>
I am thinking that having compatible for each device which it supports 
is better.

In MFD, I have made all sub module of max20024 as max20024-<module>.
I have not mixed the sub module name for max20024 with max77620 module.