linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module

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: <20e47113-efd7-787c-b2f8-39e9fd8b83d2@synopsys.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:53:40 +0000
From:   Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>,
        <wsa@...-dreams.de>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com>, <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] i2c: designware: enable SLAVE in platform module

On 28-Dec-16 15:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 14:43 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
>> - Slave mode selected in platform module (devicetree support only)
>> - Check for ACPI - not supported in SLAVE mode:
>>   - Changed the ifndef style to the use of ACPI_HANDLE that returns
>> NULL
>>     if the device was not enumerated from ACPI namespace.
> 
> I'm not sure what is wrong with ACPI?

I dont have a way to test it. Just that.
>  
>> @@ -264,9 +297,16 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>>  	if (r)
>>  		return r;
>>  
>> -	dev->functionality = I2C_FUNC_10BIT_ADDR |
>> DW_IC_DEFAULT_FUNCTIONALITY;
>> -
>> -	i2c_dw_configure_master(pdev);
> 
>> +	if (ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev) == NULL) {
> 
> I don't think you need this at all.

This is to avoid the use of the "ifdef" style I used before.
> 
>> +		device_for_each_child_node(&pdev->dev, child) {
> 
> This is resource agnostic.
> 
>> +			fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &reg);
> 
> This is as well.

Are you suggesting I use of_ functions?
> 
>> +			if (reg & I2C_OWN_SLAVE_ADDRESS)
>> +				i2c_dw_configure_slave(pdev);
>> +			else
>> +				i2c_dw_configure_master(pdev);
>> +		}
>> +	} else
>> +		i2c_dw_configure_master(pdev);
> 
>