linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ACPI / PMIC: Add TI PMIC TPS68470 operation region driver

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, 7 Jun 2017 23:06:17 +0300
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ACPI / PMIC: Add TI PMIC TPS68470 operation
 region driver

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:37:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> +static acpi_status ti_pmic_common_handler(u32 function,
> > +                                       acpi_physical_address address,
> > +                                       u32 bits, u64 *value,
> > +                                       void *handler_context,
> 
> > handler_context is unused.
> 
> >> +                                                  int, int, u64 *),
> >> +                                       int (*update)(struct regmap *,
> >> +                                                     int, int, u64),
> >> +                                       struct ti_pmic_table *table,
> >> +                                       int table_size)
> 
> I would even split this to have separate update() and get() paths
> instead of having such a monster of parameters.

I'm not really worried about the two callbacks --- you have the compexity,
which is agruably rather manageable, split into a number of caller
functions. I'd rather keep it as-is.

-- 
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@....fi	XMPP: sailus@...iisi.org.uk