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

Message-ID: <56AF1CDE.7090703@nvidia.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:22:46 +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


On Monday 01 February 2016 02:29 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> 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?
> Hmm... Actually, I have my own ideas of how this should look.  How do
> you feel about me submitting my own patch.  I'll keep you on Cc, so
> you can review and make use of it in your set.

Sure, I am fine with this. Please send the patch and CC me so that I can 
make my patch on top of it and void my mfd/core.h patch.
Thanks for taking care.


>>>> +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?
> No, I mean I don't want you providing platform data via an MFD cell
> and passing it through the OF .data attribute.

This is not platform data, this is chip specific data.
However, In patch V7, I removed this and use the id_table for the chip 
data to optimized the chip ID.
This is not required.