| 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: <534E0D35.4060506@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:55:17 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
naveen krishna <ch.naveen@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, rdunlap@...radead.org,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] iio: adc: exynos_adc: Control special clock of ADC
to support Exynos3250 ADC
Hi Sachin,
On 04/16/2014 01:44 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi Sachin,
>
> On 04/16/2014 12:48 PM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>
>> On 14 April 2014 14:37, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com> wrote:
>>> This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block.
>>> If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework,
>>> Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock.
>>>
>>> Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following:
>>> - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC
>>>
>>> Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_tsadc' clock as following:
>>> - 'sclk_tsadc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC
>>>
>>> Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_tsadc' clock
>>> in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_tsadc'
>>> clock in FSYS_BLK.
>>>
>>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
>>> Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
>>> Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
>>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>> index d25b262..3c99243 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>> @@ -40,8 +40,9 @@
>>> #include <linux/iio/driver.h>
>>>
>>> enum adc_version {
>>> - ADC_V1,
>>> - ADC_V2
>>> + ADC_V1 = 0x1,
>>> + ADC_V2 = 0x2,
>>> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
>>
>> Can't this be simply 0x3? Or is this not really a h/w version?
>
> Even thought ADC_V3 isn't h/w revision, ADC_V3 include all featues of ADC_V2
> and only one difference of clock(sclk_tsadc) from ADC_V2.
> I want to describethat ADC_V3 include ADC_V2 feature So, I add as following:
> >> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
>
>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */
>>> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>>> void __iomem *regs;
>>> void __iomem *enable_reg;
>>> struct clk *clk;
>>> + struct clk *sclk;
>>> unsigned int irq;
>>> struct regulator *vdd;
>>>
>>> @@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>>> static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = {
>>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1", .data = (void *)ADC_V1 },
>>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", .data = (void *)ADC_V2 },
>>> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v3", .data = (void *)ADC_V3 },
>>> {},
>>> };
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match);
>>> @@ -128,7 +131,7 @@ static int exynos_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>>> mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>>>
>>> /* Select the channel to be used and Trigger conversion */
>>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2) {
>>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2) {
>>
>> So, now this would be applicable for ADC_V3 too, right?
ADC_V3 isn't h/w version. So, I think this code is proper instead of using ADC_V3 direclty.
I want to use ADC_V3 version on checking clock(sclk_tsadc).
>>
>>
>>> con2 = readl(ADC_V2_CON2(info->regs));
>>> con2 &= ~ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_MASK;
>>> con2 |= ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_SEL(chan->address);
>>> @@ -165,7 +168,7 @@ static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) &
>>> ADC_DATX_MASK;
>>> /* clear irq */
>>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2)
>>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2)
>>> writel(1, ADC_V2_INT_ST(info->regs));
>>> else
>>> writel(1, ADC_V1_INTCLR(info->regs));
>>> @@ -226,11 +229,25 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove_devices(struct device *dev, void *c)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void exynos_adc_enable_clock(struct exynos_adc *info, bool enable)
>>> +{
>>> + if (enable) {
>>> + clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
>>
>> This could fail. Is it OK without any checks?
>
> OK, I'll check return value.
Do you want to check return value always?
I think again, Some device drivers in mainline would not check
return value of clock function. If maintainer confirm this modification,
I'll fix it as your comment.
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
--
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