linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5721B962.4090503@nvidia.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:48:58 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<mark.rutland@....com>, <gnurou@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	<swarren@...dia.com>, <treding@...dia.com>,
	Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024


On Thursday 28 April 2016 12:55 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 27 April 2016 08:49 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>
>>>> +#define MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES(_name, _res)			\
>>>> +	{							\
>>>> +		.name = (_name),				\
>>>> +		.resources = (_res),				\
>>>> +		.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE((_res)),		\
>>>> +	}
>>> I'm *still* not accepting this.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct mfd_cell max20024_children[] = {
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-pinctrl"),
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES("max20024-gpio", gpio_resources),
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-pmic"),
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES("max77620-rtc", rtc_resources),
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_RES("max20024-power", power_resources),
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-watchdog"),
>>>> +	MAX77620_MFD_CELL_NAME("max20024-clock"),
>>>> +};
>>> If you want this submission to be accepted this cycle, you're going to
>>> have to convert this to the traditional way of defining MFD children.
>> Yaah, I want to have this in current cycle.
>> Will it be fine as follows? (To have quick agreement)
>>
>> static const struct mfd_cell max77620_children[] = {
>>          {
>>                  .name = "max77620-pinctrl",
>>          }, {
>>                  .name = "max77620-gpio",
>>                  .resource = gpio_resources,
>>                  .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio_resources),
>>          }, {
>>          /* and so on */
>>          },
>> };
> Yes.  Although, if there are no run-time ordering dependencies, I
> usually like to a) have the one line entries on one line i.e.
>
>           { .name = "max77620-pinctrl" }
>
> ... and b) for all the one line entries to be grouped together and
> the multi line ones grouped together as well.
>


It is turning like as follows:

static const struct mfd_cell max77620_children[] = {
         { .name = "max77620-pinctrl", },
         { .name = "max77620-clock", },
         { .name = "max77620-pmic", },
         { .name = "max77620-watchdog", },
         {
                 .name = "max77620-gpio",
                 .resources = gpio_resources,
                 .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio_resources),
         }, {
                 .name = "max77620-rtc",
                 .resources = rtc_resources,
                 .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(rtc_resources),
         }, {
                 .name = "max77620-power",
                 .resources = power_resources,
                 .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(power_resources),
         }, {
                 .name = "max77620-thermal",
                 .resources = thermal_resources,
                 .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(thermal_resources),
         },
};



Will it be fine?