linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] reset: add reset-simple to unify socfpga, stm32, sunxi, and zx2967

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: <1502467044.2310.21.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:57:24 +0200
From:   Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexandru Gagniuc <alex.g@...ptrum.com>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
        Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>,
        Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] reset: add reset-simple to unify socfpga, stm32,
 sunxi, and zx2967

On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 23:51 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > +static int reset_simple_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +       const struct of_device_id *of_id =
> > +               of_match_device(of_match_ptr(reset_simple_dt_ids), dev);
> > +       const struct reset_simple_devdata *devdata = of_id->data;
> 
> Just use of_device_get_match_data().

Will do that, thanks.

> > +struct reset_simple_data {
> > +       spinlock_t                      lock;
> > +       void __iomem                    *membase;
> > +       struct reset_controller_dev     rcdev;
> > +       bool                            inverted;
> 
> You should document this option. "Inverted" by itself does not
> say a whole lot, as there is no mention about what the normal
> or non-inverted behavior is. Is the reset active low (assert
> reset when bit is cleared)? Or active high (assert reset when
> bit is set)?

You are right. Also, maybe I should rename this to
"bool active_low;" to avoid confusion where it is used.

regards
Philipp