linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 2/8] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <56AB462A.8090307@nvidia.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:29:54 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
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>,
	<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>, <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	<swarren@...dia.com>, <treding@...dia.com>,
	<k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, Chaitanya Bandi <bandik@...dia.com>,
	Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/8] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024

Thanks Lee for review.
I will take care of most of stuff on next version of patch.

However, I have some query form your comment.
On Friday 29 January 2016 02:36 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>
>> +	}
>> +
>> +#define MAX20024_SUB_MODULE_NO_RES(_name, _id)			\
>> +	[_id] = {						\
>> +		.name = "max20024-"#_name,			\
>> +		.id = _id,					\
>> +	}
> I don't want people hand-rolling this stuff.  If it's useful to you,
> it's useful to others, so great a generic implementation that lives in
> the kernel headers directory.

yaah, generic implementation possible. I can put the new defines in the 
mfd/core.h.

This will be similar to
+/* Define mfd cells with name and resource */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME_RESOURCE(_name, _res)             \
+       {                                                       \
+               .name = (_name),                                \
+               .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE((res)),             \
+               .resources = (_res),                            \
+       }
+
+/* Define mfd cells with name */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME(_name)                            \
+       {                                                       \
+               .name = (_name),                                \
+       }
+

This will be separate patch and should be applied before this series.
Does it look fine?


>
>> +static const struct i2c_device_id max77620_id[] = {
>> +	{"max77620", MAX77620},
>> +	{"max20024", MAX20024},
>> +	{},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max77620_id);
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id max77620_of_match[] = {
>> +	{
>> +		.compatible = "maxim,max77620",
>> +		.data = &max77620_cells,
>> +	}, {
>> +		.compatible = "maxim,max20024",
>> +		.data = &max20024_cells,
>> +	}, {
>> +	},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77620_of_match);
> This is not acceptable.  EITHER use DT OR MFD methods of registering
> devices, do not mix the two.

You mean I need to either provide the i2c_device_id table or the 
of_device_id table, not both?
Do I need to protect it by CONFIG_OF?

This only support the DT method of registration. So do I need to remove 
i2c_device_id?