linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add new device nodes for Spreadtrum SC9860 platform

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: <CAMz4kuJdPts31Ak-H=VAivvoqqPtxO5M1RdqrNPwTLT5d1h_7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:40:10 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        Lyra Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add new device nodes for Spreadtrum SC9860 platform

Hi Mark,

Sorry for late reply.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 21:05, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 08:05:30PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
> > On Spreadtrum platform, we use one mfd driver [1] to populate the
> > SC27XX series PMICs including SC2731, SC2721, SC2720 and SC2730. So we
> > use sc27xx to be compatible with different PMICs' devices, otherwise
> > it will be difficult to define the mfd cell arrays in mfd driver. Do
> > you have any good suggestion? Thanks.
>
> You can just list all the individual device names in the of_match_table
> for the MFD and then it can bind to any of them.  You can always map
> them onto the same behaviour in the MFD driver if they are identical
> from a software point of view.

If I understood correctly, as you suggested, we should add new
mfd_cell groups to list all different PMICs' device names. Something
like:

static const struct mfd_cell sprd_pmic_sc2731_devs[] = {
{
.name = "sc27xx-wdt",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2731-wdt",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-rtc",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2731-rtc",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-charger",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2731-charger",
},  {
.name = "sc27xx-fast-chg",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2731-fast-chg",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-typec",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2731-typec",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-eic",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2731-eic",
},

.......

};

static const struct mfd_cell sprd_pmic_sc2730_devs[] = {
{
.name = "sc27xx-wdt",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2730-wdt",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-rtc",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2730-rtc",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-charger",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2730-charger",
},  {
.name = "sc27xx-fast-chg",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2730-fast-chg",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-typec",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2730-typec",
}, {
.name = "sc27xx-eic",
.of_compatible = "sprd,sc2730-eic",
},

.......

};

......

But from my point, they are just some meaningless duplication, and
will waste lots of code there.

-- 
Baolin Wang
Best Regards