linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem providers

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:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:39:07 +0100
From:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
	pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com, mporter@...sulko.com,
	stefan.wahren@...e.com, wxt@...k-chips.com,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem
 providers

Thanks for quick review,


On 10/07/15 11:29, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 10:44 +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>> This patch adds just providers part of the framework just to enable easy
>> review.
>
> Trivial notes:
Will fix all them.

--srini
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
>
>> +struct nvmem_device {
>> +	const char		*name;
>> +	struct regmap		*regmap;
> []
>> +struct nvmem_cell {
>> +	const char *name;
>> +	int			offset;
>> +	int			bytes;
>
> It'd be nicer to use consistent indentation for *name
> in nvmem_cell
>
>> +static ssize_t bin_attr_nvmem_read(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
>> +				    struct bin_attribute *attr,
>> +				    char *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
>> +{
> []
>> +	count = count/nvmem->word_size * nvmem->word_size;
>
> maybe rounddown() ?
>
>> +static ssize_t bin_attr_nvmem_write(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
>> +				     struct bin_attribute *attr,
>> +				     char *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
>> +{
>
>> +	count = count/nvmem->word_size * nvmem->word_size;
>
> and rounddown() here too ?
>
>> +static struct nvmem_device *of_nvmem_find(struct device_node *nvmem_np)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *d;
>> +
>> +	if (!nvmem_np)
>> +		return NULL;
>> +
>> +	d = bus_find_device(&nvmem_bus_type, NULL, nvmem_np, of_nvmem_match);
>> +
>> +	return d ? to_nvmem_device(d) : NULL;
>> +}
>
> Perhaps more common as
>
> 	d = bus_find_device(&nvmem_bus_type, NULL, nvmem_np, of_nvmem_match);
> 	if (!d)
> 		return NULL;
>
> 	return to_nvmem_device(d);
> }
>
>> +struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(struct nvmem_config *config)
>> +{
> []
>> +	nvmem->read_only = nvmem->dev.of_node ?
>> +				of_property_read_bool(nvmem->dev.of_node,
>> +				"read-only") :
>> +				config->read_only;
>
> odd indentation.
> Normally, "read-only" would be aligned with nvmem->dev.of_node,
>
>> +	dev_dbg(&nvmem->dev, "Registering nvmem device %s\n",
>> +		dev_name(&nvmem->dev));
>
> Isn't this going to have duplicated dev_name prefix and postfix?
>
>> +	if (device_create_bin_file(&nvmem->dev,
>> +				nvmem->read_only ? &bin_attr_ro_nvmem :
>> +				&bin_attr_rw_nvmem))
>> +		dev_info(&nvmem->dev, "Failed to create sysfs binary file\n");
>
> Is the KERN_LEVEL correct?
> Maybe dev_err/notice/warn/dbg?
>
>
--
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/