linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: add support for Socionext SynQuacer I2C controller

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:20:08 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: add support for Socionext SynQuacer I2C controller

On 20 February 2018 at 19:39, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 20 February 2018 at 14:02, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
>>> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>
>>> Shouldn't be // ?
>
>> IIUC, this applies to .h files only, and /* */ is preferred for .c files.
>
> Other way around.
>
> Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
>

OK got it

>>>> +#define WAIT_PCLK(n, rate)     ndelay((((1000000000 +  (rate) - 1) / \
>>>> +                                        (rate) + n - 1) / n) + 10)
>>>
>>> This split makes it harder to catch the calculus.
>>> Also, you can use DIV_ROUND_UP(), though it longer, but adds a bit of
>>> clarity to the calculus.
>
>> Yeah. This was present in the original code, and I tried to avoid
>> touching it :-)
>
> Yeah, but below there are several instances with DIV_ROUND_UP().
>

I'll replace it with the equivalent

#define WAIT_PCLK(n, rate) \
    ndelay(DIV_ROUND_UP(DIV_ROUND_UP(1000000000, rate), n) + 10)

>>>> +static void synquacer_i2c_stop(struct synquacer_i2c *i2c, int ret)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "STOP\n");
>>>
>>> Hmm... Can't use FTRACE ?
>
>> What do you mean?
>
> The message kinda useless, esp. if you can enable functional tracing.
> I saw a lot of debugging messages in the code, perhaps it makes sense
> at some point to make some trace points in I2C core and leave only HW
> related here.
>

OK, I will just drop it.

>>>> +       if (dev_of_node(&pdev->dev)) {
>>>> +               i2c->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "pclk");
>>>> +               if (IS_ERR(i2c->clk)) {
>>>> +                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "cannot get clock\n");
>>>> +                       return PTR_ERR(i2c->clk);
>>>> +               }
>>>> +               dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "clock source %p\n", i2c->clk);
>>>> +
>>>> +               i2c->clkrate = clk_get_rate(i2c->clk);
>>>> +               dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "clock rate %d\n", i2c->clkrate);
>>>> +               clk_prepare_enable(i2c->clk);
>>>> +       } else {
>>>
>>>> +               ret = device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev,
>>>> +                                              "socionext,pclk-rate",
>>>> +                                              &i2c->clkrate);
>>>
>>> I suppose for ACPI we just register a fixed rate clock and use it in
>>> the driver in the same way as in OF case.
>>> I guess at some point we even can provide a generic clock provider for
>>> ACPI based on rate property.
>
>> Is there a question here? Do you want me to change anything?
>
> Is it opener for discussion. At least in the drivers we have done for
> x86 we do the way I described.
>
> See, for example, drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c
>

OK, I see what you mean now. But for this driver, creating a fixed
rate clock with no controls whatsoever, only to interrogate it for its
rate (which we retrieved from the ACPI device node in the first place)
seems rather pointless to me. Am I missing something here?