| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:07:48 -0700
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Allie Xiong <axiong@...aptics.com>,
William Manson <wmanson@...aptics.com>,
Peichen Chang <peichen.chang@...aptics.com>,
Joerie de Gram <j.de.gram@...il.com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@...ricsson.com>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/17] input: RMI4 F09 Built-In Self Test
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com> wrote:
Put in a verbose description of what this is.
(...)
> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f09.c
> +/* data specific to fn $09 that needs to be kept around */
> +struct f09_query {
> + u8 limit_register_count;
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 result_register_count:3;
> + u8 reserved:3;
> + u8 internal_limits:1;
> + u8 host_test_enable:1;
> + };
> + u8 f09_bist_query1;
> + };
> +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
> +struct f09_control {
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 test1_limit_low:8;
> + u8 test1_limit_high:8;
> + u8 test1_limit_diff:8;
> + };
> + u8 f09_control_test1[3];
> + };
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 test2_limit_low:8;
> + u8 test2_limit_high:8;
> + u8 test2_limit_diff:8;
> + };
> + u8 f09_control_test2[3];
> + };
> +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
> +struct f09_data {
> + u8 test_number_control;
> + u8 overall_bist_result;
> + u8 test_result1;
> + u8 test_result2;
> + u8 transmitter_number;
> +
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 receiver_number:6;
> + u8 limit_failure_code:2;
> + };
> + u8 f09_bist_data2;
> + };
> +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
> +struct f09_cmd {
> + union {
> + struct {
> + u8 run_bist:1;
> + };
> + u8 f09_bist_cmd0;
> + };
> +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
(...)
> +static struct device_attribute attrs[] = {
> + __ATTR(status, RMI_RW_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_status_show, rmi_f09_status_store),
> + __ATTR(limitRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_limit_register_count_show, rmi_store_error),
> + __ATTR(hostTestEnable, RMI_RW_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_host_test_enable_show, rmi_f09_host_test_enable_store),
> + __ATTR(internalLimits, RMI_RO_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_internal_limits_show, rmi_store_error),
> + __ATTR(resultRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_result_register_count_show, rmi_store_error),
> + __ATTR(overall_bist_result, RMI_RO_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_overall_bist_result_show, rmi_store_error),
> + __ATTR(test_number_control, RMI_RW_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_test_number_control_show,
> + rmi_f09_test_number_control_store),
> + __ATTR(test_result1, RMI_RO_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_test_result1_show, rmi_store_error),
> + __ATTR(test_result2, RMI_RO_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_test_result2_show, rmi_store_error),
> + __ATTR(run_bist, RMI_RW_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_run_bist_show, rmi_f09_run_bist_store),
> + __ATTR(f09_control_test1, RMI_RW_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_control_test1_show, rmi_f09_control_test1_store),
> + __ATTR(f09_control_test2, RMI_RW_ATTR,
> + rmi_f09_control_test2_show, rmi_f09_control_test2_store),
> +};
If this is *only* for tests, then for sure this should be in debugfs?
> +static int rmi_f09_alloc_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
(...)
> +static void rmi_f09_free_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
Why do you need separate functions for these two?
If they are only used from one place (which I suspect) then just
put the code at that site.
(...)
> +static int rmi_f09_initialize(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
> +{
> + struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = fc->rmi_dev;
> + struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata;
> + struct rmi_fn_09_data *f09 = fc->data;
> + u16 query_base_addr;
> + int rc;
> +
> +
> + pdata = to_rmi_platform_data(rmi_dev);
> + query_base_addr = fc->fd.query_base_addr;
> +
> + /* initial all default values for f09 query here */
> + rc = rmi_read_block(rmi_dev, query_base_addr,
> + (u8 *)&f09->query, sizeof(f09->query));
> + if (rc < 0) {
> + dev_err(&fc->dev, "Failed to read query register."
> + " from 0x%04x\n", query_base_addr);
> + return rc;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Similar here. Cannot this be brought into the only call site?
> +static int rmi_f09_config(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
> +{
> + /*we do nothing here. instead reset should notify the user.*/
> + return 0;
> +}
Make it optional and just don't define it.
> +static int rmi_f09_reset(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
> +{
> + struct rmi_fn_09_data *instance_data = fc->data;
> +
> + instance_data->status = -ECONNRESET;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Dito.
(Already remarked this at the last patch.)
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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