| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTimHr2OOi8RVone+h2yCXAHh2Sm5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:29:51 +0900
From: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
To: axel.lin@...il.com
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
박경민 <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
함명주 <myungjoo.ham@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: Simplify MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS/MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS/MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS
macros
Hello Axel,
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi MyungJoo,
>
> 2011/5/16 함명주 <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> Sender : Axel Lin<axel.lin@...il.com>
>>> Date : 2011-05-16 15:52 (GMT+09:00)
>>> Title : [PATCH] regulator: Simplify MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS/MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS/MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS macros
>>>
>>> Looks like the original macro implementation assumes the caller pass the
>>> parameter starting from 1.
>>> Since now we have +1 operation from all the caller, it would be easier to
>>> assume the caller pass the parameter starting from 0.
>>> Then we can simplify the +1 operation from the caller and then -1 operation
>>> in the macro implementation.
>>>
>>> I think this change also improves readability.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin
>>
>> Well, I'd rather just change the for loop statement for your purpose, which I also agree.
>>
>> The reason I've used BUCKxDVS1 as the starting point is because of the register names; register names of BUCKxDVS starts from 1, not from 0.
>
> Ok. I got your point for the implementation.
>
>> Thus, in order to maintain the consistency between the code and the chip manual, I'd rather not change that part, but change like this:
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
>> index b1c1444..aad85e4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
>> @@ -1031,12 +1031,12 @@ static __devinit int max8997_pmic_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> }
>>
>> /* For the safety, set max voltage before setting up */
>> - for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
>> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS(i + 1),
>> + for (i = 1; i <= 8; i++) {
>> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS(i),
>> max_buck1, 0x3f);
>> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS(i + 1),
>> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS(i),
>> max_buck2, 0x3f);
>> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS(i + 1),
>> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS(i),
>> max_buck5, 0x3f);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.4.1
>>
>> How about this one?
>>
> But it doesn't apply for below case because max8997->buck1_vol[i] is
> start from 0.
>
>
> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS(i),
> max8997->buck1_vol[i],
> 0x3f);
>
> Maybe consider to remove the macro may make things simpler.
> If you agree, I'll send a v2.
Yes, that looks just fine to me.
Thank you.
- MyungJoo
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> index b1c1444..10d5a1d 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> @@ -1032,11 +1032,11 @@ static __devinit int max8997_pmic_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
>
> /* For the safety, set max voltage before setting up */
> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS(i + 1),
> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS1 + i,
> max_buck1, 0x3f);
> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS(i + 1),
> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS1 + i,
> max_buck2, 0x3f);
> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS(i + 1),
> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS1 + i,
> max_buck5, 0x3f);
> }
>
> @@ -1113,13 +1113,13 @@ static __devinit int max8997_pmic_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
>
> /* Initialize all the DVS related BUCK registers */
> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS(i + 1),
> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS1 + i,
> max8997->buck1_vol[i],
> 0x3f);
> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS(i + 1),
> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS1 + i,
> max8997->buck2_vol[i],
> 0x3f);
> - max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS(i + 1),
> + max8997_update_reg(i2c, MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS1 + i,
> max8997->buck5_vol[i],
> 0x3f);
> }
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/max8997-private.h
> b/include/linux/mfd/max8997-private.h
> index 69d1010..5ff2400 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/max8997-private.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/max8997-private.h
> @@ -311,10 +311,6 @@ enum max8997_irq {
> MAX8997_IRQ_NR,
> };
>
> -#define MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS(x) (MAX8997_REG_BUCK1DVS1 + (x) - 1)
> -#define MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS(x) (MAX8997_REG_BUCK2DVS1 + (x) - 1)
> -#define MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS(x) (MAX8997_REG_BUCK5DVS1 + (x) - 1)
> -
> #define MAX8997_NUM_GPIO 12
> struct max8997_dev {
> struct device *dev;
>
>
> Regards,
> Axel
>
--
MyungJoo Ham (함명주), Ph.D.
Mobile Software Platform Lab,
Digital Media and Communications (DMC) Business
Samsung Electronics
cell: 82-10-6714-2858
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists