linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] regulator: mt6380: Add support for MT6380

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: <1498236198.20651.32.camel@mtkswgap22>
Date:   Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:43:18 +0800
From:   Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>, <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <chen.zhong@...iatek.com>, <chenglin.xu@...iatek.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] regulator: mt6380: Add support for MT6380

On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 17:14 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:56:05PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 19:22 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > > +	return (regval & info->desc.enable_mask) ?
> > > > +		REGULATOR_STATUS_ON : REGULATOR_STATUS_OFF;
> 
> > > This isn't really a get_status() operation - it's just showing the
> > > status of the enable we set.  The get_status() operation is for hardware
> > > that has a mechanism for reading back the current physical status of the
> > > regulator, usually including things like if it's in regulation or not.
> 
> > > Also please write normal conditional statements, it helps people read
> > > the code.
> 
> > for the hardware, the way for reflect the current physical physical 
> > has to depend on the bit reading as the bit we enable. It indeed tends
> > to confuse other users and developers, we maybe can add some comments
> > for this to avoid.
> 
> It's OK to just not have a get_status() operation - a lot of regulators
> just can't do this and that's fine, the subsystem will cope.
> 

understood. it seems to be better with subsystem coping. we'll remove
get_status callback.

> > > > +static const struct of_device_id mt6380_of_match[] = {
> > > > +	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6380-regulator", },
> > > > +	{ /* sentinel */ },
> > > > +};
> > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6380_of_match);
> 
> > > Given that this driver is entirely specific to the parent PMIC there
> > > should be no need for a separate compatible string, it's redundant.
> 
> > the parent of pmic is MediaTek pwrap which is possibly being used with
> > various pmics such as MT6323, MT6797, MT6380 and so on. So extra
> > matching we thought is required to identify which pmic is actually being
> > connected. 
> 
> > For those opinions, maybe we didn't get your exact point. If something
> > is wrong, please kindly guide us to the right place.
> 
> It sounds like pwrap should be a bus rather than using a platform device
> here?  But I guess that's how things are for now so OK.

yes, it is a bus , a proprietary bus,  which is something like
encapsulation of spi and there's some protocol running on this 
between master/slave.