| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1503306337.23444.2.camel@mhfsdcap03>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 17:05:37 +0800
From: Zhi Mao <zhi.mao@...iatek.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC: <john@...ozen.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
<linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
<yt.shen@...iatek.com>, <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
<zhenbao.liu@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] pwm: mediatek: add MT2712/MT7622 support
Hi Thierry,
Thanks for your review code.
I will modify the code as you comment in the next release.
Regards
Zhi
On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 10:05 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:05:21PM +0800, Zhi Mao wrote:
> > 1. support multiple chip(MT2712, MT7622, MT7623)
> > 2. add mtk_pwm_com_reg for match the registers of MT2712 pwm8
> > the register offset address of pwm8 for MT2712 is not fixed 0x40
> > and they are not the same as pwm0~6.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhi Mao <zhi.mao@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c
> > index 1d78ab1..2c9ce24 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mediatek.c
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/clk.h>
> > #include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/pwm.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > @@ -40,11 +41,19 @@ enum {
> > MTK_CLK_PWM3,
> > MTK_CLK_PWM4,
> > MTK_CLK_PWM5,
> > + MTK_CLK_PWM6,
> > + MTK_CLK_PWM7,
> > + MTK_CLK_PWM8,
> > MTK_CLK_MAX,
> > };
> >
> > -static const char * const mtk_pwm_clk_name[] = {
> > - "main", "top", "pwm1", "pwm2", "pwm3", "pwm4", "pwm5"
> > +static const char * const mtk_pwm_clk_name[MTK_CLK_MAX] = {
> > + "main", "top", "pwm1", "pwm2", "pwm3", "pwm4",
> > + "pwm5", "pwm6", "pwm7", "pwm8"
>
> You're wrapping these lines at arbitrary boundaries. Make sure to use
> all of the 80 columns at your disposal.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct mtk_com_pwm_data {
>
> What does the _com stand for in the above?
>
> > + unsigned int pwm_nums;
> > };
>
> Maybe name this num_pwms for consistency with other drivers?
>
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -57,6 +66,11 @@ struct mtk_pwm_chip {
> > struct pwm_chip chip;
> > void __iomem *regs;
> > struct clk *clks[MTK_CLK_MAX];
> > + const struct mtk_com_pwm_data *data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const unsigned long mtk_pwm_com_reg[] = {
>
> There's another of these _com that I don't understand what it means.
> Also since these are all fairly small offsets, these can simply be
> unsigned int.
>
> > + 0x0010, 0x0050, 0x0090, 0x00d0, 0x0110, 0x0150, 0x0190, 0x0220
> > };
> >
> > static inline struct mtk_pwm_chip *to_mtk_pwm_chip(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> > @@ -103,14 +117,14 @@ static void mtk_pwm_clk_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > static inline u32 mtk_pwm_readl(struct mtk_pwm_chip *chip, unsigned int num,
> > unsigned int offset)
> > {
> > - return readl(chip->regs + 0x10 + (num * 0x40) + offset);
> > + return readl(chip->regs + mtk_pwm_com_reg[num] + offset);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void mtk_pwm_writel(struct mtk_pwm_chip *chip,
> > unsigned int num, unsigned int offset,
> > u32 value)
> > {
> > - writel(value, chip->regs + 0x10 + (num * 0x40) + offset);
> > + writel(value, chip->regs + mtk_pwm_com_reg[num] + offset);
> > }
> >
> > static int mtk_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > @@ -194,23 +208,28 @@ static int mtk_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (!pc)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > + pc->data = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > +
> > res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > pc->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> > if (IS_ERR(pc->regs))
> > return PTR_ERR(pc->regs);
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < MTK_CLK_MAX; i++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < pc->data->pwm_nums + 2; i++) {
> > pc->clks[i] = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, mtk_pwm_clk_name[i]);
> > - if (IS_ERR(pc->clks[i]))
> > + if (IS_ERR(pc->clks[i])) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "[PWM] clock: %s fail: %ld\n",
> > + mtk_pwm_clk_name[i], PTR_ERR(pc->clks[i]));
>
> Why include the "[PWM] " prefix in the above message?
>
> > return PTR_ERR(pc->clks[i]);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > - platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
> > -
> > pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> > pc->chip.ops = &mtk_pwm_ops;
> > pc->chip.base = -1;
> > - pc->chip.npwm = 5;
> > + pc->chip.npwm = pc->data->pwm_nums;
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
>
> No need to move the location of the platform_set_drvdata() call. It's
> needless churn.
>
> > static const struct of_device_id mtk_pwm_of_match[] = {
> > - { .compatible = "mediatek,mt7623-pwm" },
> > - { }
> > + {.compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-pwm", .data = &mt2712_pwm_data},
> > + {.compatible = "mediatek,mt7622-pwm", .data = &mt7622_pwm_data},
> > + {.compatible = "mediatek,mt7623-pwm", .data = &mt7623_pwm_data},
> > + {},
>
> Spaces after { and before }, please.
>
> Thierry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists