linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2] DA9210 driver files

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130702210617.GA27646@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:06:17 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
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 V2] DA9210 driver files

On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Steve Twiss wrote:
> From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
> 
> This is the regulator driver for the Dialog DA9210 Multi-phase Buck.
> The patch is relative to linux-next next-20130701
> and this is RFC attempt number 2

Please follow the patch submission process in SubmittingPatches.  This
doesn't visually resemble most patch submissions...

>  >This looks like you should be using a regmap range.

> The use of regmap_range is not being considered because I am not intending
> to use PAGE_CON register page selection in any of the driver development.

Makes sense to map things in for diagnostics...

> +config REGULATOR_DA9210
> +	tristate "Dialog Semiconductor DA9210 Regulator"

Capitalisation is wrong Here.

> +static int da9210_set_current_limit(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int min_uA,
> +				    int max_uA)
> +{
> +	struct da9210 *chip = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> +	unsigned int sel;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/* search for closest to maximum */
> +	for (i = N_CURRENT_LIMITS-1; i >= 0; i--) {

Coding style.

> +	ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap, DA9210_REG_BUCK_ILIM, &data);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	sel = (data & DA9210_BUCK_ILIM_MASK) >> DA9210_BUCK_ILIM_SHIFT;
> +
> +	return da9210_buck_limits[sel];

There's no unused values in the selector?

> +	chip->desc.id = 0;
> +	chip->desc.type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
> +	chip->desc.n_voltages = ((DA9210_MAX_MV - DA9210_MIN_MV)
> +				/ DA9210_STEP_MV) + 1;
> +	chip->desc.ops = &da9210_buck_ops;
> +	chip->desc.owner = THIS_MODULE;
> +	chip->desc.name = "DA9210";
> +	chip->desc.enable_reg = DA9210_REG_BUCK_CONT;
> +	chip->desc.enable_mask = DA9210_BUCK_EN;
> +	chip->desc.vsel_reg = DA9210_REG_VBUCK_A;
> +	chip->desc.vsel_mask = DA9210_VBUCK_MASK;
> +	chip->desc.min_uV = (DA9210_MIN_MV * 1000);
> +	chip->desc.uV_step = (DA9210_STEP_MV * 1000);

Why is this not just global static data?  There's nothing variable
here...

> +	dev_info(&i2c->dev,
> +		"DA9210 device detected\n");
> +

Remove this - it's just noise, apart from anything else nothing here has
actually verified that the chip exists.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)