linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: pfuze100: add pfuze100 regulator driver

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]

Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:40:39 +0800
From:	Robin Gong <b38343@...escale.com>
To:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	<rob.herring@...xeda.com>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	<broonie@...nel.org>, <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <rob@...dley.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: pfuze100: add pfuze100 regulator driver

Shawn, Thanks for your carefully review and I will correct it and send the patch again. some comments below:
> > +
> > +struct pfuze_regulator {
> > +	struct regulator_desc desc;
> > +	unsigned char stby_reg;
> > +	unsigned char stby_mask;
> > +};
> > +
> > +enum pfuze_id {
> > +	PFUZE_ID_PFUZE100,
> > +	PFUZE_ID_INVALID,
> > +};
> 
> Have a blank line here.
> 
> Is there any other valid ID other than PFUZE_ID_PFUZE100?  If not, we
> may not need this pfuze_id at all.  All the use of it is in
> pfuze_identify() for dev_info output.
> 
Yes, Now there is only one chip PFUZE100 here, but I'm told before there will be a series of pfuze family such as PFUZE101,PFUZE102..etc, so I keep the place for future.
> > +struct pfuze_chip {
> > +	struct pfuze_regulator *regulators_desc;
> > +	int num_regulators;
> > +	struct regmap *regmap;
> > +	struct device *dev;
> > +	enum pfuze_id chip;	/*chip type*/
> 
> /* comment */
> 
> Also I do not see much necessity of this member.  It's only used in
> function pfuze_identify(), from what I can see.
> 
Ditto
> > +	struct regulator_dev *regulators[];
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct regulator_ops pfuze100_ldo_regulator_ops;
> > +static struct regulator_ops pfuze100_fixed_regulator_ops;
> > +static struct regulator_ops pfuze100_sw_regulator_ops;
> > +static struct regulator_ops pfuze100_swb_regulator_ops;
> > +
> > +static const int pfuze100_swbst[] = {
> > +	5000000, 5050000, 5100000, 5150000,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const int pfuze100_vsnvs[] = {
> > +	1000000, 1100000, 1200000, 1300000, 1500000, 1800000, 3000000,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct i2c_device_id pfuze_device_id[] = {
> > +	{.name = "pfuze100", .driver_data = PFUZE_ID_PFUZE100},
> 
> You do not use .driver_data in the driver at all, and can just drop it.
> 
> > +	{},
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pfuze_device_id);
> > +
> > +
> 
> Drop one blank line.
> 
> > +static const struct of_device_id pfuze_dt_ids[] = {
> > +	{ .compatible = "fsl,pfuze100", .data = (void *)PFUZE_ID_PFUZE100},
> 
> You do not use .data in the driver at all, and can just drop it.
>
good catch. .driver_data  of i2c_device_id and .data of of_device_id are two different ways to let driver know which chip used now by DTS or not. I should use them to know which chip used now ,although I can know by reading chipid register. 


--
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/