linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] pinctrl: mvebu: kirkwood pinctrl 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]

Message-ID: <503BC830.7090705@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:19:12 +0200
From:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
To:	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
CC:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] pinctrl: mvebu: kirkwood pinctrl driver

On 08/27/2012 03:43 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 06:49, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth
>> <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com> wrote:
>> (...)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-kirkwood.c
>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-kirkwood.c
>>> +static struct mvebu_pinctrl_soc_info kirkwood_pinctrl_info;
>>> +
>>> +static struct of_device_id kirkwood_pinctrl_of_match[] __devinitdata
>>> = {
>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6180-pinctrl",
>>> + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6180 },
>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6190-pinctrl",
>>> + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6190 },
>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6192-pinctrl",
>>> + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6192 },
>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6281-pinctrl",
>>> + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6281 },
>>> + { .compatible = "marvell,88f6282-pinctrl",
>>> + .data = (void *)VARIANT_MV88F6282 },
>>> + { }
>>> +};
>>
>> I'm thinking this variant should maybe be an enum... unless it is
>> strongly established somewhere in Orion/Marvell stuff.
>>
>>> +static int __devinit kirkwood_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device
>>> *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mvebu_pinctrl_soc_info *soc = &kirkwood_pinctrl_info;
>>> + const struct of_device_id *match =
>>> + of_match_device(kirkwood_pinctrl_of_match, &pdev->dev);
>>> +
>>> + if (match) {
>>> + soc->variant = (unsigned)match->data & 0xff;
>>> + switch (soc->variant) {
>>> + case VARIANT_MV88F6180:
>>> + soc->controls = mv88f6180_mpp_controls;
>>> + soc->ncontrols = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6180_mpp_controls);
>>> + soc->modes = mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes;
>>> + soc->nmodes = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes);
>>> + soc->gpioranges = mv88f6180_gpio_ranges;
>>> + soc->ngpioranges = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6180_gpio_ranges);
>>> + break;
>>> + case VARIANT_MV88F6190:
>>> + case VARIANT_MV88F6192:
>>> + soc->controls = mv88f619x_mpp_controls;
>>> + soc->ncontrols = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f619x_mpp_controls);
>>> + soc->modes = mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes;
>>> + soc->nmodes = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes);
>>> + soc->gpioranges = mv88f619x_gpio_ranges;
>>> + soc->ngpioranges = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f619x_gpio_ranges);
>>> + break;
>>> + case VARIANT_MV88F6281:
>>> + case VARIANT_MV88F6282:
>>> + soc->controls = mv88f628x_mpp_controls;
>>> + soc->ncontrols = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f628x_mpp_controls);
>>> + soc->modes = mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes;
>>> + soc->nmodes = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f6xxx_mpp_modes);
>>> + soc->gpioranges = mv88f628x_gpio_ranges;
>>> + soc->ngpioranges = ARRAY_SIZE(mv88f628x_gpio_ranges);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + pdev->dev.platform_data = soc;
>>> + }
>>> + return mvebu_pinctrl_probe(pdev);
>>> +}
>
> Why not have structures defining the soc-> parameters and use that in the
> of_match list?

Ben,

functionally it is equivalent and IMHO using soc structs doesn't improve
readability here. I there any other good reason to have structs for each
soc?

Sebastian
--
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/