linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] phy: add a driver for the Rockchip SoC internal USB2.0 PHY

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54895785.104@ti.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:06:21 +0530
From:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:	Yunzhi Li <lyz@...k-chips.com>, <heiko@...ech.de>,
	<jwerner@...omium.org>, <dianders@...omium.org>
CC:	<olof@...om.net>, <huangtao@...k-chips.com>, <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
	<cf@...k-chips.com>, <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] phy: add a driver for the Rockchip SoC internal
 USB2.0 PHY

Hi,

On Thursday 11 December 2014 01:14 PM, Yunzhi Li wrote:
> Hi Kishon:
> 
> On 2014/12/11 14:02, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wednesday 10 December 2014 04:16 PM, Yunzhi Li wrote:
>>> This patch to add a generic PHY driver for ROCKCHIP usb PHYs,
>>> currently this driver can support RK3288. The RK3288 SoC have
>>> three independent USB PHY IPs which are all configured through a
>>> set of registers located in the GRF (general register files)
>>> module.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yunzhi Li <lyz@...k-chips.com>
>>>
>>> +
>>> +#define ROCKCHIP_RK3288_UOC(n)    (0x320 + n * 0x14)
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * The higher 16-bit of this register is used for write protection
>>> + * only if BIT(13 + 16) set to 1 the BIT(13) can be written.
>>> + */
>>> +#define SIDDQ_MSK        BIT(13 + 16)
>> I think here the "MSK" is misleading. it should be something that refers write
>> protection?
> So, #define SIDDQ_WRITE_ENA  BIT(29) , could be ok ?

yeah. should be fine.
>>> +#define SIDDQ_ON        BIT(13)
>>> +#define SIDDQ_OFF        (0 << 13)
>>> +
>>> +struct rockchip_usb_phy {
>>> +    struct regmap    *reg_base;
>>> +    unsigned int    reg_offset;
>>> +    struct clk    *clk;
>>> +    struct phy    *phy;
>>> +    unsigned    index;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct rockchip_usb_phy_priv {
>>> +    struct rockchip_usb_phy    *phys;
>>> +    unsigned        nphys;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int rockchip_usb_phy_power(struct rockchip_usb_phy *phy,
>>> +                       bool siddq)
>>> +{
>>> +    return regmap_write(phy->reg_base, phy->reg_offset,
>>> +                SIDDQ_MSK | (siddq ? SIDDQ_ON : SIDDQ_OFF));
>> Shouldn't we actually reset the bit for power off?
> Sorry, which bit you refer to here  and why should it be reset? could you give
> more infomation.

Never mind. Initially was thinking it might affect bits other than siddq but
anyway you have write lock. So should be fine.

Thanks
Kishon
--
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/