linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeRh9hORs=4nPqc=rUOCRzAfp0z2_1_xpJUScAeE07yqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:16:49 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
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,
        Mani Sadhasivam <manivannanece23@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] pinctrl: actions: Add Actions S900 pinctrl driver

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:46 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 void owl_update_bits(void __iomem *base, u32 mask, u32 val)
> +{
> +       u32 reg_val;
> +
> +       reg_val = readl_relaxed(base);
> +
> +       reg_val &= ~mask;
> +       reg_val |= val;

Usual pattern here is

reg_val = (reg_val & ~mask) | (val & mask);

This will allow to avoid possible overflow.

> +
> +       writel_relaxed(reg_val, base);
> +}

> +       tmp = readl_relaxed(pctrl->base + reg);
> +       mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> +       arg = (tmp >> bit) & mask;

This looks like a candidate for a helper function. You have at least
one more same code.

Something like

..._read_field(reg, mask, shift)


> +               mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> +               mask = mask << bit;
> +
> +               owl_update_bits(pctrl->base + reg, mask, (arg << bit));

Similar here,

..._write_field(regm mask, shift, arg)

> +       tmp = readl_relaxed(pctrl->base + reg);
> +       mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> +       arg = (tmp >> bit) & mask;

> +               mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> +               mask = mask << bit;
> +
> +               owl_update_bits(pctrl->base + reg, mask, (arg << bit));

> +static const struct pinconf_ops owl_pinconf_ops = {
> +       .is_generic = true,
> +       .pin_config_get = owl_pin_config_get,
> +       .pin_config_set = owl_pin_config_set,
> +       .pin_config_group_get = owl_group_config_get,
> +       .pin_config_group_set = owl_group_config_set

It's still good idea to leave comma here...

> +};
> +
> +static struct pinctrl_desc owl_pinctrl_desc = {
> +       .pctlops = &owl_pinctrl_ops,
> +       .pmxops = &owl_pinmux_ops,
> +       .confops = &owl_pinconf_ops,
> +       .owner = THIS_MODULE

...and here, and in all similar places.

> +};
> +

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko