linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/19] mfd: Use mfd cell platform

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:	Wed, 11 May 2011 10:23:29 +0200
From:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] mfd: Use mfd cell platform_data for tps6105x
 cells platform bits

Hi Linus,

On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:05:19AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/5/9 Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>:
> 
> > With the addition of a platform device mfd_cell pointer, MFD drivers
> > can go back to passing platform data back to their sub drivers.
> > This allows for an mfd_cell->mfd_data removal and thus keep the
> > sub drivers MFD agnostic. This is mostly needed for non MFD aware
> > sub drivers.
> >
> > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> > Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> I have some question marks on this one...
> 
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps6105x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6105x.c
> > @@ -183,7 +183,8 @@ static int __devinit tps6105x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >        /* Set up and register the platform devices. */
> >        for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tps6105x_cells); i++) {
> >                /* One state holder for all drivers, this is simple */
> > -               tps6105x_cells[i].mfd_data = tps6105x;
> > +               tps6105x_cells[i].platform_data = tps6105x;
> > +               tps6105x_cells[i].pdata_size = sizeof(*tps6105x);
> 
> ACK
> 
> > --- a/drivers/regulator/tps6105x-regulator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/tps6105x-regulator.c
> > @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ static struct regulator_desc tps6105x_regulator_desc = {
> >  */
> >  static int __devinit tps6105x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> > -       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = mfd_get_data(pdev);
> > +       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> 
> Can you use platform_get_drvdata(pdev); instead?
I suppose you mean dev_get_platdata() ?


> >        struct tps6105x_platform_data *pdata = tps6105x->pdata;
> >        int ret;
> >
> > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static int __devinit tps6105x_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> >  static int __devexit tps6105x_regulator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> > -       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +       struct tps6105x *tps6105x = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> 
> And this is a NO-OP, actually a bug in the present code, just leave it
> as it is and the other changes removing the mfd->mfd_data fixes the bug...
I agree it's a bug in the current code. But I need to fetch the platform_data
pointer, so here again I would have to call dev_get_platdata().

Cheers,
Samuel.


> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/