linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: as3711: Use a static of_regulator_match table for of_regulator

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1304170729080.12878@axis700.grange>
Date:	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:35:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>
cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: as3711: Use a static of_regulator_match table
 for of_regulator_match

Hi Axel

Thanks for the patch

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Axel Lin wrote:

> The same table can be used for multiple instance of pdev, so we don't need to
> allocate memory for of_regulator_match table per pdev.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>
> ---
>  drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c |   46 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c
> index 0539b3e..dd1a089 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c
> @@ -278,52 +278,44 @@ static struct as3711_regulator_info as3711_reg_info[] = {
>  
>  #define AS3711_REGULATOR_NUM ARRAY_SIZE(as3711_reg_info)
>  
> -static const char *as3711_regulator_of_names[AS3711_REGULATOR_NUM] = {
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_1] = "sd1",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_2] = "sd2",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_3] = "sd3",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_4] = "sd4",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_1] = "ldo1",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_2] = "ldo2",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_3] = "ldo3",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_4] = "ldo4",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_5] = "ldo5",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_6] = "ldo6",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_7] = "ldo7",
> -	[AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_8] = "ldo8",
> +static struct of_regulator_match as3711_regulator_matches[] = {
> +	{ .name = "sd1" },
> +	{ .name = "sd2" },
> +	{ .name = "sd3" },
> +	{ .name = "sd4" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo1" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo2" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo3" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo4" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo5" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo6" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo7" },
> +	{ .name = "ldo8" },

Please keep explicit indices to match this array's members to the 
as3711_reg_info[] array.

>  };
>  
>  static int as3711_regulator_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
>  				struct device_node **of_node, const int count)
>  {
>  	struct as3711_regulator_pdata *pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
> -	struct device_node *regulators =
> -		of_find_node_by_name(dev->parent->of_node, "regulators");
> -	struct of_regulator_match *matches, *match;
> +	struct device_node *regulators;
> +	struct of_regulator_match *match;
>  	int ret, i;
>  
> +	regulators = of_find_node_by_name(dev->parent->of_node, "regulators");

What was wrong with the original code? I don't see a difference, this 
seems to be an unrelated stylistic change, please, don't do this.

>  	if (!regulators) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "regulator node not found\n");
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
>  
> -	matches = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*matches) * count, GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!matches)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> -
> -	for (i = 0, match = matches; i < count; i++, match++) {
> -		match->name = as3711_regulator_of_names[i];
> -		match->driver_data = as3711_reg_info + i;

This is a separate change. I was probably copy-pasting this parsing from 
some other driver and didn't realise, that .driver_data isn't actually 
used. And that was the reason why I copied the array at run-time. I won't 
play a patch-police here, asking you to split this into a separate patch, 
but please, could you at least make a remark in the commit message, 
confirming my understanding. Or maybe I'm wrong and .driver_data is 
needed? Then the whole your patch might not be right.

> -	}
> -
> -	ret = of_regulator_match(dev->parent, regulators, matches, count);
> +	ret = of_regulator_match(dev->parent, regulators,
> +				 as3711_regulator_matches, count);
>  	of_node_put(regulators);
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Error parsing regulator init data: %d\n", ret);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	for (i = 0, match = matches; i < count; i++, match++)
> +	for (i = 0, match = as3711_regulator_matches; i < count; i++, match++)
>  		if (match->of_node) {
>  			pdata->init_data[i] = match->init_data;
>  			of_node[i] = match->of_node;
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
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/