linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] phy: rockchip-inno-usb2: add a new driver for Rockchip usb2phy

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:59:50 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Frank Wang <frank.wang@...k-chips.com>, heiko@...ech.de,
	dianders@...omium.org, groeck@...omium.org, jwerner@...omium.org,
	kishon@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
	mark.rutland@....com, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
	galak@...eaurora.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	xzy.xu@...k-chips.com, kever.yang@...k-chips.com,
	huangtao@...k-chips.com, william.wu@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] phy: rockchip-inno-usb2: add a new driver for
 Rockchip usb2phy

On 06/16/2016 07:09 PM, Frank Wang wrote:
> The newer SoCs (rk3366, rk3399) take a different usb-phy IP block
> than rk3288 and before, and most of phy-related registers are also
> different from the past, so a new phy driver is required necessarily.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Wang <frank.wang@...k-chips.com>
> Suggested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> Suggested-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> ---

[ ... ]

> +
> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_resume(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> +	struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port resume\n");
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(rphy->clk480m);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
If suspend can be called multiple times, resume can be called
multiple times as well. Doesn't this cause a clock imbalance
if you call clk_prepare_enable() multiple times on resume,
but clk_disable_unprepare() only once on suspend ?

> +	ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, false);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	rport->suspended = false;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rockchip_usb2phy_suspend(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	struct rockchip_usb2phy_port *rport = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
> +	struct rockchip_usb2phy *rphy = dev_get_drvdata(phy->dev.parent);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(&rport->phy->dev, "port suspend\n");
> +
> +	if (rport->suspended)
> +		goto exit;
> +

I know I am nitpicking, but
		return 0;
would be fine here, be more consistent with the rest of the code,

> +	ret = property_enable(rphy, &rport->port_cfg->phy_sus, true);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	rport->suspended = true;
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(rphy->clk480m);
> +
> +exit:
> +	return 0;

and this label is really unnecessary.

> +}
> +

[ ... ]