linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] mfd: da9063: Use REGMAP_IRQ

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:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:16:38 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] mfd: da9063: Use REGMAP_IRQ_REG

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2018, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2018 02:26 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 02 Jun 2018, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> >> Convert the regmap_irq table to use REGMAP_IRQ_REG().
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> >> >> ---
> >> >> V3: New patch
> >> >> Note: A sed oneliner was used:
> >> >>       sed -i "/\[DA9063_IRQ_/ {N;N;N;s/\n//g;s/.*\[\(DA9063_IRQ_[^]]\+\)].*reg_offset = \([^,]\+\),.* = \([^,]\+\),.*/\tREGMAP_IRQ_REG(\1, \2, \3),/}" drivers/mfd/da9063-irq.c
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  drivers/mfd/da9063-irq.c | 145 ++++++++++-------------------------------------
> >> >>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 116 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-irq.c
> >> >> index 207bbfe55449..5b406ecfc14a 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-irq.c
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-irq.c
> >> >> @@ -28,125 +28,38 @@
> >> >>
> >> >>  static const struct regmap_irq da9063_irqs[] = {
> >> >>    /* DA9063 event A register */
> >> >> -  [DA9063_IRQ_ONKEY] = {
> >> >> -          .reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
> >> >> -          .mask = DA9063_M_ONKEY,
> >> >> -  },
> >> >> -  [DA9063_IRQ_ALARM] = {
> >> >> -          .reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
> >> >> -          .mask = DA9063_M_ALARM,
> >> >> -  },
> >> >> -  [DA9063_IRQ_TICK] = {
> >> >> -          .reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
> >> >> -          .mask = DA9063_M_TICK,
> >> >> -  },
> >> >> -  [DA9063_IRQ_ADC_RDY] = {
> >> >> -          .reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
> >> >> -          .mask = DA9063_M_ADC_RDY,
> >> >> -  },
> >> >> -  [DA9063_IRQ_SEQ_RDY] = {
> >> >> -          .reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
> >> >> -          .mask = DA9063_M_SEQ_RDY,
> >> >> -  },
> >> >> +  REGMAP_IRQ_REG(DA9063_IRQ_ONKEY, DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET, DA9063_M_ONKEY),
> >> >> +  REGMAP_IRQ_REG(DA9063_IRQ_ALARM, DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET, DA9063_M_ALARM),
> >> >> +  REGMAP_IRQ_REG(DA9063_IRQ_TICK, DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET, DA9063_M_TICK),
> >> >> +  REGMAP_IRQ_REG(DA9063_IRQ_ADC_RDY, DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET, DA9063_M_ADC_RDY),
> >> >> +  REGMAP_IRQ_REG(DA9063_IRQ_SEQ_RDY, DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET, DA9063_M_SEQ_RDY),
> >> >
> >> > Nice, but I think checkpatch.pl would complain.
> >> >
> >> > Better to break after the first argument I think.
> >>
> >> Doesn't really help the readability, but done.
> >
> > I don't make the rules. :)
> 
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst:
> 
> "Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless
>  exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide
>  information."

Operative word here is "significantly".

> > Personally /me is hoping that the 80 char limit is lifted to ~120 soon.
> 
> Please no ;-)

Maybe 120 is pushing it a little, but 80 is so 19xx? ... well, 80!

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog