| 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: <6ED8E3B22081A4459DAC7699F3695FB71D6CABFB@SW-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:18:11 +0000
From: "Opensource [Steve Twiss]" <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC V1] COMMIT 1: DA9210 driver files
On Fri, 21 June 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Steve Twiss wrote:
>
>> @@ -293,6 +293,13 @@ config REGULATOR_LP8788
>> help
>> This driver supports LP8788 voltage regulator chip.
>>
>> +config REGULATOR_DA9210
>> + bool "Dialog Semiconductor DA9210 Regulator"
>> + depends on I2C=y
>> + select REGMAP_I2C
>> + help
>> + Support for the Dialog Semiconductor DA9210 chip.
>> +
>> config REGULATOR_PCF50633
>
>This file ought to be kept sorted though it seems that's not been happening, and I'm not
>seeing any reason why this can't be a tristate.
>
I have made this alphabetical now.
I will also change this so it is capable of being built as a module then re-submit.
>> +#define DRIVER_NAME "da9210"
>
>Why?
>
This has been removed and the other places have been replaced with a string instead.
>> +struct da9210 {
>> + struct i2c_client *i2c;
>> + struct device *dev;
>> + struct mutex io_mutex;
>
>Why do you need an I/O lock?
>
This has been removed.
>> +static int da9210_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev); static int
>> +da9210_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV,
>> + int max_uV, unsigned *selector); static int
>> +da9210_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev); static int
>> +da9210_set_current_limit(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uA,
>> + int max_uA);
>> +static int da9210_get_current_limit(struct regulator_dev *rdev);
>> +
>> +static struct regulator_ops da9210_buck_ops = {
>> + .enable = da9210_enable,
>> + .disable = regulator_disable_regmap,
>> + .is_enabled = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
>> + .set_voltage = da9210_set_voltage,
>> + .get_voltage = da9210_get_voltage,
>> + .list_voltage = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
>> + .set_current_limit = da9210_set_current_limit,
>> + .get_current_limit = da9210_get_current_limit, };
>
>Drivers are normally written to avoid forward declarations like this.
>
I will review this.
>> +static struct regulator_consumer_supply __initdata def_da9210_consumers[] = {
>> + REGULATOR_SUPPLY("DA9210", NULL),
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct regulator_init_data __initdata default_da9210_constraints = {
>> + .constraints = {
>
>This is not at all sensible, there's a good solid reason why regulator drivers don't
>generally do this... please review the machine interface and its purpose.
>
I will do this then re-submit.
>> +static int da9210_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uV,
>> + int max_uV, unsigned *selector) {
>> + struct da9210 *chip = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
>> + int val;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + val = regulator_map_voltage_linear(rdev, min_uV, max_uV);
>> + if (val < 0)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap, DA9210_REG_VBUCK_A,
>> + DA9210_VBUCK_MASK, val);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
>Why not just use set_voltage_sel()?
>
Will re-write this to use core functionality
>> +static int da9210_get_voltage_sel(struct regulator_dev *rdev) {
>> + struct da9210 *chip = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
>> + unsigned int data;
>> + int sel;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap, DA9210_REG_VBUCK_A, &data);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + sel = (data & DA9210_VBUCK_MASK) >> DA9210_VBUCK_SHIFT;
>> + sel -= DA9210_VBUCK_BIAS;
>> + if (sel < 0)
>> + sel = 0;
>> + if (sel >= chip->info->n_steps)
>> + sel = chip->info->n_steps - 1;
>
>This looks like poor error handling, if the value is out of range isn't there an error state?
>
I will review this
>> +static int da9210_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev) {
>> + struct da9210 *chip = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
>> + int sel = da9210_get_voltage_sel(rdev);
>> +
>> + if (sel < 0)
>> + return sel;
>> +
>> + return (chip->info->step_uV * sel) + chip->info->min_uV; }
>
>Why are you open coding core functionalit?
>
>> +static int da9210_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) {
>> + return regulator_enable_regmap(rdev); }
>
>This is pointless, just use the generic function directly.
>
Done: now using regulator_enable_regmap instead of function just containing regulator_enable_regmap.
>> +
>> + dev_info(chip->dev, "Device DA9210 detected.\n");
>
>This is just noise.
>
Removed this.
>> +static const struct i2c_device_id da9210_i2c_id[] = {
>> + {DRIVER_NAME, 0},
>> + {},
>
>Just use the string.
>
>> +static struct i2c_driver da9210_regulator_driver = {
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = DRIVER_NAME,
>
>Similarly here.
>
Yep, remove this now.
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> + },
>
>Indentation.
>
Done.
>> +static int __init da9210_regulator_init(void) {
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = i2c_add_driver(&da9210_regulator_driver);
>> + if (0 != ret)
>> + pr_err("Failed to register da9210 I2C driver\n");
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +subsys_initcall(da9210_regulator_init);
>
>Just use module_platform_driver() now we have probe deferral.
>
Yes. I will look at altering this then re-submit.
>> +/*
>> + * Registers bits
>> + */
>> +/* DA9210_REG_PAGE_CON (addr=0x00) */
>> +#define DA9210_PEG_PAGE_SHIFT 0
>> +#define DA9210_REG_PAGE_MASK 0x0F
>> +/* On I2C registers 0x00 - 0xFF */
>> +#define DA9210_REG_PAGE0 0
>> +/* On I2C registers 0x100 - 0x1FF */
>> +#define DA9210_REG_PAGE2 2
>> +#define DA9210_PAGE_WRITE_MODE 0x00
>> +#define DA9210_REPEAT_WRITE_MODE 0x40
>> +#define DA9210_PAGE_REVERT 0x80
>
>This looks liike you should be using a regmap range.
I will look at this again and then resubmit.
Thanks for your comments.
--
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