linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] mfd: max77650: new core mfd 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: <CAMpxmJWXOb1HW4QiEn8gMp3Nh05ahE0CMLXkac+hEKRjtGxTHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:29:39 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] mfd: max77650: new core mfd driver

wt., 12 lut 2019 o 12:14 Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >
> > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > >  * The declaration of a superfluous struct
> > > > >  * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code
> > > > >  * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources
> > > > >  * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present)
> > > > >  * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up
> > > >
> > > > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :)
> > >
> > > You have nested for() loops.  You *are* wasting lots of cycles.
> > >
> > > > > Need I go on? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API
> > > > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must
> > > > > set some alarm bells ringing?
> > > > >
> > > > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess.
> > > > >
> > > > > And for what?  To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver?
> > > >
> > > > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass
> > > > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers?
> > >
> > > I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they
> > > are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different
> > mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct
> > containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine?
>
> How do you plan on deriving the VIRQs to place into the struct?

Exampe:

struct max77650_gpio_pdata {
    int gpi_irq;
};

In MFD driver:

struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = devm_kmalloc(dev, sizeof(*gpio_data));

gpio_data->gpi_irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(irqchip_data, GPI_NUM);

gpio_cell.platform_data = gpio_data;

In GPIO driver:

struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = pdev->dev.platform_data;

int irq = gpio_data->gpi_irq;

Bart