linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support

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: <20160125160633.GB11740@piout.net>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:06:33 +0100
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802
 support

Hi,

On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
> 
> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
> could be supported as well like the max77620.
> 
> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
> 
> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
> that no regressions were introduced.
> 
> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
> 
> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
> 

Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
but I'm not convinced it really fits.

> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
> 

I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com