linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mfd: rn5t618: register power off callback optionally

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:00:46 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc:	lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, khilman@...libre.com,
	carlo@...one.org, b.galvani@...il.com, max.oss.09@...il.com,
	marcel@...wiler.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, mark.rutland@....com,
	pawel.moll@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mfd: rn5t618: register power off callback
 optionally

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Stefan Agner wrote:

> On 2016-06-16 07:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Stefan Agner wrote:
> > 
> >> Only register power off if the PMIC is defined as system power
> >> controller (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/
> >> power-controller.txt).
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
> > 
> > These should be chronological.
> > 
> 
> Has been discussed already here:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-May/345835.html
> 
> It's an artifact of my development process, I keep the commits in my
> local branches without signed off lines and add them before sending out
> patches. So whenever I prepare a new revision, collected acks, sobs are
> chronological, but end up before my sob.
> 
> But since you are the second maintainer which has objection to that
> style I probably should change that...

It would make your life easier in the long run. :)

> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 10 +++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> >> index 7607ced..d9b4d40 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> >> @@ -103,9 +103,13 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >>  		return ret;
> >>  	}
> >>
> >> -	if (!pm_power_off) {
> >> -		rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
> >> -		pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
> >> +	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
> >> +		if (!pm_power_off) {
> >> +			rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
> >> +			pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
> >> +		} else {
> >> +			dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to set poweroff capability, already defined\n");
> > 
> > This is not an error.  Please use dev_warn() instead.
> > 
> 
> Hm, I agree... FWIW, I copied the code (and that message) from here,
> where dev_err is probably also not appropriate:
> drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c

Mark (Regulator maintainer) also accepts patches.

> > Also, is this message actually accurate?  Your commit message would
> > indicate that it's not.
> 
> Hm, maybe we should bail out with an error in that case since DT
> explicitly asks to be power controller... Is that what you mean?

I think I misunderstood the message.  To fix this I would reword it.

"Poweroff call-back already defined"

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog