linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] pinctrl: actions: Add Actions S900 pinctrl driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180301172943.cuypepvflte2cynr@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 22:59:44 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        刘炜 <liuwei@...ions-semi.com>,
        mp-cs@...ions-semi.com, 96boards@...obotics.com,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        hzhang@...obotics.com, bdong@...obotics.com,
        manivannanece23@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] pinctrl: actions: Add Actions S900 pinctrl
 driver

Hi Andy,

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:36:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
> <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Add pinctrl driver for Actions Semi S900 SoC. The driver supports
> > pinctrl, pinmux and pinconf functionalities through a range of registers
> > common to both gpio driver and pinctrl driver.
> >
> > Pinmux functionality is available only for the pin groups while the
> > pinconf functionality is available for both pin groups and individual
> > pins.
> 
> > +static int owl_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctrldev,
> > +                               unsigned int function,
> > +                               unsigned int group)
> > +{
> 
> > +       mfpval = readl(pctrl->base + g->mfpctl_reg);
> > +       mfpval &= ~mask;
> > +       mfpval |= val;
> > +       writel(mfpval, pctrl->base + g->mfpctl_reg);
> 
> This is called owl_update_bits().
>

Okay. Will add a helper.
 
> > +static int owl_pin_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctrldev,
> > +                               unsigned int pin,
> > +                               unsigned long *configs,
> > +                               unsigned int num_configs)
> > +{
> 
> > +       int ret = 0;
> 
> Redundant assignment?
>

Ack.
 
> > +               mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> > +               mask = mask << bit;
> > +               tmp = readl(pctrl->base + reg);
> > +               tmp &= ~mask;
> > +               tmp |= arg << bit;
> > +               writel(tmp, pctrl->base + reg);
> 
> This is called owl_update_bits().
>

Ack.

> > +}
> 
> > +static int owl_group_pinconf_val2arg(const struct owl_pingroup *g,
> > +                               unsigned int param,
> > +                               u32 *arg)
> > +{
> 
> > +       case PIN_CONFIG_SLEW_RATE:
> > +               if (*arg)
> > +                       *arg = 1;
> > +               else
> > +                       *arg = 0;
> 
> Doesn't slew rate allow a non-binary value?
>

As stated in the binding doc, valid values for the slew rate parameter are:

0 - Slow
1 - Fast
 
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int owl_group_config_get(struct pinctrl_dev *pctrldev,
> > +                               unsigned int group,
> > +                               unsigned long *config)
> > +{
> > +       int ret = 0;
> 
> Redundant assignment.
> 

Ack.

> > +}
> 
> > +static int owl_group_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctrldev,
> > +                               unsigned int group,
> > +                               unsigned long *configs,
> > +                               unsigned int num_configs)
> > +{
> > +       int ret = 0;
> 
> Redundant assignment, see below.
>

Ack. Will return 0 directly.
 
> > +               mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> > +               mask = mask << bit;
> > +               tmp = readl(pctrl->base + reg);
> > +               tmp &= ~mask;
> > +               tmp |= arg << bit;
> > +               writel(tmp, pctrl->base + reg);
> 
> This is called owl_update_bits().
>

Ack.
 
> > +       return ret;
> 
> return 0; ?
> 

Okay.

> > +}
> 
> > +int owl_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > +                               struct owl_pinctrl_soc_data *soc_data)
> > +{
> 
> > +       clk_prepare_enable(pctrl->clk);
> 
> This can fail.
>

Okay. Will add a check.
 
> > +}
> 
> > +static const struct of_device_id s900_pinctrl_of_match[] = {
> > +       { .compatible = "actions,s900-pinctrl", },
> 
> > +       { },
> 
> No comma needed.
>

Okay.

Thanks for the review.

Regards,
Mani
 
> > +};
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko