linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity

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: <20161025083700.342f9abe@bbrezillon>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:37:00 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Lothar Wassmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>,
        Bhuvanchandra DV <bhuvanchandra.dv@...adex.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] pwm: imx: Introduce "polarity_supported" flag to
 PWMv2 driver

Hi Lukasz,

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:14:58 +0200
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:28:52 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:46 +0200
> > > Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > The need for set_polarity() function has been removed by
> > > > implementing PWM atomic support (apply() callback).
> > > > 
> > > > To indicate that the PWMv2 supports polarity inversion, new flag -
> > > > "polarity_supported" has been introduced.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > index 02d3dfd..be3034d 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx.c
> > > > @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static struct pwm_ops imx_pwm_ops_v2 = {
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  struct imx_pwm_data {
> > > > +	bool polarity_supported;
> > > >  	struct pwm_ops *pwm_ops;
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -266,6 +267,7 @@ static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v1 = {
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  static struct imx_pwm_data imx_pwm_data_v2 = {
> > > > +	.polarity_supported = true,
> > > >  	.pwm_ops = &imx_pwm_ops_v2,
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -313,7 +315,7 @@ static int imx_pwm_probe(struct
> > > > platform_device *pdev) imx->chip.base = -1;
> > > >  	imx->chip.npwm = 1;
> > > >  	imx->chip.can_sleep = true;
> > > > -	if (data->pwm_ops->set_polarity) {
> > > > +	if (data->polarity_supported) {    
> > > 
> > > You're still breaking backward compatibility with DTs defining
> > > #pwm-cells = 2.
> > > 
> > > Please test the #pwm-cells value before deciding which of_xlate
> > > should be used.  
> > 
> > Nevermind, I didn't look at [1] and [2].  
> 
> Yes, some patches are required to make this code work. Especially, I
> wanted to explicitly reuse and credit work already done by
> Bhuvanchandra.
> 
> > But still, your series is not bisectable: this change should be part
> > of patch 5 where you remove the ->set_polarity implementation.
> > Otherwise, this means you don't support polarity setting between
> > patch 5 and 6.  
> 
> Frankly speaking, I did it on purpose, to have operations in commits
> logically separated.
> 
> I personally, do detest commits which blur the picture and are not
> corresponding to one single logical change - for example remove some
> large chunk of code and also add some tiny, new flag.
> 
> For me it is not a problem to have polarity disabled between patches 5
> and 6, since at the end of the day we have it enabled.

It's really simple to make this series bisectable, all you have to do
is move patch 6 before patch 5. This being said, I really think you
should follow Stefan's recommendation: base your changes on mainline
and switch to the atomic hook before supporting polarity setting.

Regards,

Boris