linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: cros_ec: add EC

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: <CAD=FV=X8eOQLbdAseL2_JwpOFNjSLDAi9hX=NrE=CfrrTZfAmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:51:45 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	linux-pwm <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Stephen Barber <smbarber@...omium.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Enric Balletbo <enric.balletbo@...labora.co.uk>,
	Randall Spangler <rspangler@...omium.org>,
	Shawn Nematbakhsh <shawnn@...omium.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Todd Broch <tbroch@...omium.org>,
	Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: cros_ec: add EC_PWM function definitions

Lee,

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016, Brian Norris wrote:
>
>> The EC_CMD_PWM_{GET,SET}_DUTY commands allow us to control a PWM that is
>> attached to the EC, rather than the main host SoC. The API provides
>> functionality-based (e.g., keyboard light, backlight) or index-based
>> addressing of the PWM(s). Duty cycles are represented by a 16-bit value,
>> where 0 maps to 0% duty cycle and U16_MAX maps to 100%. The period
>> cannot be controlled.
>>
>> This command set is more generic than, e.g.,
>> EC_CMD_PWM_{GET,SET}_KEYBOARD_BACKLIGHT and could possibly used to
>> replace it on future products.
>>
>> Let's update the command header to include the definitions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
>> ---
>> v2: no change
>>
>>  include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
>> index 13b630c10d4c..d673575e0ada 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
>> @@ -949,6 +949,37 @@ struct ec_params_pwm_set_fan_duty {
>>       uint32_t percent;
>>  } __packed;
>>
>> +#define EC_CMD_PWM_SET_DUTY 0x25
>> +/* 16 bit duty cycle, 65535 = 100% */
>> +#define EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY 65535
>
> Any reason this isn't represented in hex, like we do normally?
>
>> +enum ec_pwm_type {
>> +     /* All types, indexed by board-specific enum pwm_channel */
>> +     EC_PWM_TYPE_GENERIC = 0,
>> +     /* Keyboard backlight */
>> +     EC_PWM_TYPE_KB_LIGHT,
>> +     /* Display backlight */
>> +     EC_PWM_TYPE_DISPLAY_LIGHT,
>> +     EC_PWM_TYPE_COUNT,
>> +};
>
> Are these comments really necessary?  I'd recommend that if your
> defines require comments, then they are not adequately named.  In this
> case however, I'd suggest that they are and the comments are
> superfluous.
>
>> +struct ec_params_pwm_set_duty {
>> +     uint16_t duty;     /* Duty cycle, EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY = 100% */
>> +     uint8_t pwm_type;  /* ec_pwm_type */
>> +     uint8_t index;     /* Type-specific index, or 0 if unique */
>> +} __packed;
>
> Please use kerneldoc format.
>
>> +#define EC_CMD_PWM_GET_DUTY 0x26
>> +
>> +struct ec_params_pwm_get_duty {
>> +     uint8_t pwm_type;  /* ec_pwm_type */
>> +     uint8_t index;     /* Type-specific index, or 0 if unique */
>> +} __packed;

Probably the reason for all of these non-kernel-isms is that this
isn't a kernel file.  From the top of the file:

 * NOTE: This file is copied verbatim from the ChromeOS EC Open Source
 * project in an attempt to make future updates easy to make.

So the source of truth for this file is
<https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/master/include/ec_commands.h>.

Someone could probably submit a CL to that project to make it a little
more kernel-ish and then we'd have to see if the EC team would accept
such changes...


-Doug