linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: palmas: Reset the POWERHOLD mux during power off

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: <7f78b9be-8f47-c4f6-7392-15d9b1441496@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:48:51 +0530
From:   Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     <tony@...mide.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <nm@...com>, <t-kristo@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: palmas: Reset the POWERHOLD mux during power off



On Wednesday 09 November 2016 09:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Keerthy wrote:
>
>> POWERHOLD signal has higher priority  over the DEV_ON bit.
>> So power off will not happen if the POWERHOLD is held high.
>> Hence reset the MUX to GPIO_7 mode to release the POWERHOLD
>> and the DEV_ON bit to take effect to power off the PMIC.
>>
>> PMIC Power off happens in dire situations like thermal shutdown
>> so irrespective of the POWERHOLD setting go ahead and turn off
>> the powerhold.  Currently poweroff is broken on boards that have
>> powerhold enabled. This fixes poweroff on those boards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/mfd/palmas.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
>> index 8f8bacb..8fbc5e0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c
>> @@ -430,10 +430,28 @@ static void palmas_power_off(void)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned int addr;
>>  	int ret, slave;
>> +	struct device_node *node;
>> +	bool override_powerhold;
>>
>>  	if (!palmas_dev)
>
> Can this happen?

pm_power_off and palmas_dev are always assigned together. You are right 
this is redundant and can be removed.

>
>>  		return;
>>
>> +	node = palmas_dev->dev->of_node;
>
> Just do:
>
> struct device_node *np = palmas_dev->dev->of_node;
>
>> +	override_powerhold = of_property_read_bool(node,
>> +					"ti,palmas-override-powerhold");
>
> Break the line after the '=' instead.

okay.

>
>> +	if (override_powerhold) {
>
> if (of_property_read_bool(node,	"ti,palmas-override-powerhold"))
>
> Then remove 'override_powerhold'.

Okay.

>
>> +		addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE,
>> +					  PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2);
>> +		slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE);
>> +
>> +		ret = regmap_update_bits(palmas_dev->regmap[slave], addr,
>> +					 PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2_GPIO_7_MASK, 0);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			pr_err("%s: Unable to write PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2 %d\n",
>> +			       __func__, ret);
>
> Don't use __func__ in live code.

okay.

>
> And use dev_err();

sure.

>
>
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE);
>>  	addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE, PALMAS_DEV_CTRL);
>>
>