linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: rtsx: reduce code duplication in rtl8411

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: <20131115145840.GC4996@lee--X1>
Date:	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:58:40 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	micky_ching@...lsil.com.cn
Cc:	sameo@...ux.intel.com, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	wei_wang@...lsil.com.cn, rogerable@...ltek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: rtsx: reduce code duplication in rtl8411

> From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> 
> in order to remove duplicated code in rtl8411, we make 8411 as the base
> init params, and other like-8411 chips will just change the different
> value with 8411, this can save some source code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Micky Ching <micky_ching@...lsil.com.cn>

It's not good etiquette to send patches 'From:' and 'Signed-off-by:' a
person when they are neither from or signed-off by that person.

It's much better practice to reply to the original patches with
comments placed directly under the code you wish to reference.

<snip>

> -void rtl8411b_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr)
> +void rtl8411_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr)
>  {
> -	pcr->extra_caps = EXTRA_CAPS_SD_SDR50 | EXTRA_CAPS_SD_SDR104;
> -	pcr->num_slots = 2;
> -	pcr->ops = &rtl8411b_pcr_ops;
> -
> -	pcr->flags = 0;
> -	pcr->card_drive_sel = RTL8411_CARD_DRIVE_DEFAULT;
> -	pcr->sd30_drive_sel_1v8 = DRIVER_TYPE_B;
> -	pcr->sd30_drive_sel_3v3 = DRIVER_TYPE_D;
> -	pcr->aspm_en = ASPM_L1_EN;

> -	pcr->tx_initial_phase = SET_CLOCK_PHASE(23, 7, 14);
> -	pcr->rx_initial_phase = SET_CLOCK_PHASE(4, 3, 10);

So what happened to these?

> -	pcr->ic_version = rtl8411_get_ic_version(pcr);
> +	/* rtl8411 params */
> +	rtl8411_init_base_params(pcr);
> +	set_pull_ctrl_tables(rtl8411);
> +
> +	/* different with rtl8411 */
> +	switch (PCI_PID(pcr)) {
> +	case 0x5287:
> +		rtl8411_pcr_ops.fetch_vendor_settings =
> +			rtl8411b_fetch_vendor_settings;
> +		rtl8411_pcr_ops.extra_init_hw = rtl8411b_extra_init_hw;
> +
> +		if (rtl8411b_is_qfn48(pcr))
> +			set_pull_ctrl_tables(rtl8411b_qfn48);
> +		else
> +			set_pull_ctrl_tables(rtl8411b_qfn64);

I'm not a big fan of this.

<snip>

> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> index 11e20af..ecc6852 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.c
> @@ -1046,10 +1046,6 @@ static int rtsx_pci_init_chip(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr)
>  		rts5229_init_params(pcr);
>  		break;
>  
> -	case 0x5289:
> -		rtl8411_init_params(pcr);
> -		break;
> -
>  	case 0x5227:
>  		rts5227_init_params(pcr);
>  		break;
> @@ -1059,7 +1055,8 @@ static int rtsx_pci_init_chip(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr)
>  		break;
>  
>  	case 0x5287:
> -		rtl8411b_init_params(pcr);
> +	case 0x5289:
> +		rtl8411_init_params(pcr);
>  		break;
>  	}

I see where you're going with this, but my personal opinion is that it
looks neater and more readable set out as two separate init functions.

> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.h b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.h
> index 947e79b..dd435d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.h
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rtsx_pcr.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ void rts5229_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr);
>  void rtl8411_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr);
>  void rts5227_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr);
>  void rts5249_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr);
> -void rtl8411b_init_params(struct rtsx_pcr *pcr);
>  
>  static inline u8 map_sd_drive(int idx)
>  {
> @@ -63,4 +62,12 @@ static inline u8 map_sd_drive(int idx)
>  #define rtl8411_reg_to_sd30_drive_sel_3v3(reg)	(((reg) >> 5) & 0x07)
>  #define rtl8411b_reg_to_sd30_drive_sel_3v3(reg)	((reg) & 0x03)
>  
> +#define set_pull_ctrl_tables(__device)				\
> +do {								\
> +	pcr->sd_pull_ctl_enable_tbl  = __device##_sd_pull_ctl_enable_tbl;  \
> +	pcr->sd_pull_ctl_disable_tbl = __device##_sd_pull_ctl_disable_tbl; \
> +	pcr->ms_pull_ctl_enable_tbl  = __device##_ms_pull_ctl_enable_tbl;  \
> +	pcr->ms_pull_ctl_disable_tbl = __device##_ms_pull_ctl_disable_tbl; \
> +} while (0)

Great spot Micky. I'll fix this up and resend.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/