linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support

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, 24 May 2018 11:48:54 +0000
From:   Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>,
        "Wolfram Sang" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support

Thanks Marek,

> On 23 May 2018 12:43 Marek Vasut wrote,
>
> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>;
> Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>; Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>;
> Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
>
> Add support for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 with less regulators and without RTC.
>

There's potentially more to this file. Without an RTC the regmap access tables would change and the
usual DA9063 (BB silicon) tables would become invalid.
The tables for da9063_bb_readable_ranges, da9063_bb_writeable_ranges, da9063_bb_volatile_ranges,
would need to be updated for DA9063L, if a new chip model was needed.

The new ranges would be this (see below), and would remove any RTC accesses in the new chip model.

static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_readable_ranges[] = {
	{
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_T_OFFSET,
		.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_CHIP_ID,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_CHIP_VARIANT,
	},
};

static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_writeable_ranges[] = {
	{
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_FAULT_LOG,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_VSYS_MON,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONFIG_I,
		.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_4,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_0,
		.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
	},
};

static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_volatile_ranges[] = {
	{
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_A,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_B,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_E,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_F,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_BCORE2_CONT,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_LDO11_CONT,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_DVC_1,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_ADC_MAN,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_ADC_RES_L,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
		.range_max = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
	}, {
		.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_5,
		.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_6,
	},
};

However this is a larger and more wide-ranging change compared to the one proposed by Marek,
and would require other alterations to fit this in. Also I'm undecided to what it would really add
apart from a new chip model: I have been told accessing the DA9063 RTC register locations has
no effect in the DA9063L.

If the maintainers are happy with this, and if a chip model addition is really needed in future
it can be added later if required.

Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>

Regards,
Steve

> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c index 5544ce8e3363..84bbd2bbcd2a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ static struct regmap_config da9063_regmap_config = {
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id da9063_dt_ids[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "dlg,da9063", },
> +	{ .compatible = "dlg,da9063l", },
>  	{ }
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, da9063_dt_ids); @@ -282,6 +283,7 @@ static int da9063_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>  
>  static const struct i2c_device_id da9063_i2c_id[] = {
>  	{ "da9063", PMIC_TYPE_DA9063 },
> +	{ "da9063l", PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L },
>  	{},
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, da9063_i2c_id);
> --
> 2.16.2