linux-kernel - Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:46:43 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	<rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>
CC:	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <gnurou@...il.com>,
	<lee.jones@...aro.org>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<a.zummo@...ertech.it>, <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	<lgirdwood@...il.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	<swarren@...dia.com>, <treding@...dia.com>,
	Chaitanya Bandi <bandik@...dia.com>,
	Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024

Hi Krzysztof,
Thanks for review.
I will fix most of your comment on my next patch.

Answering to some of comment/query.

On Friday 08 January 2016 07:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> ()2016-01-07 23:38 GMT+09:00 Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>:
> +                               dev_err(dev,
> +                                   "FPS enable-input %u is not supported\n",
> +                                       pval);
> Indentation of arguments does not seem equal here or maybe this is
> just my email client. Have you run this through checkpatch? And
> sparse? And coccicheck (that one definitely not because kbuild is
> complaining)?
I ran checkpatch before I sent.

> +               chip->rmap[i] = devm_regmap_init_i2c(chip->clients[i],
> +               (const struct regmap_config *)&max77620_regmap_config[i]);
> Indentation looks weird here (or again this is my email client...).
> The cast is even weirder?!? Why casting?
There is some parameter difference for MAX77620 and MAX20024. I have 
only one structure for it and changing tun time so I have not define 
this structure as constant.
Now API needs const type structure and hence casting it.

However, I have  define different structure for MAX77620 and MAX20024 
which are const type and hence no need to explicitly casting here. This 
will be in my next patch.

+static inline int max77620_reg_update(struct device *dev, int sid,
+               unsigned int reg, unsigned int mask, unsigned int val)
+{
+       struct max77620_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+       return regmap_update_bits(chip->rmap[sid], reg, mask, val);
+}

> I think all these shouldn't be static inlines in header. Although some
> of them are one-liners but rest are not. Let the compiler decide what
> to do with these wrappers.

If I dont make inline from header then this will complain as unused 
static function on related C compilation if it is not used on C. This 
header included from all sub module driver and they are not using all 
these APIs.

To avoid compilation warning,  I need to use inline here.