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: <6ED8E3B22081A4459DAC7699F3695FB71D6EDB94@SW-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jul 2013 06:19:15 +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 V2] DA9210 driver files

On 02 July 2013 @ 22:06, Mark Brown wrote:

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

Will follow the rules more closely in future.

>>  >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...
>

I will take a look at putting regmap_range into the driver.

>> +config REGULATOR_DA9210
>> +	tristate "Dialog Semiconductor DA9210 Regulator"
>
>Capitalisation is wrong Here.

Will remove "R" from Regulator.

>> +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.
>

Will review this and then resubmit.
 
>> +	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?
>

.. and again

>> +	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...
>

.. and this: will look at this and then re-submit.

>> +	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.

oh... apologies for this. I took it out after your last request, but it 
went back in again while I was debugging and I forgot to take it
out before I re-submitted


--
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/