linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: davinci: ohci-da8xx: model the vbus GPIO as a fixed regulator

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: <CAMRc=Memgo9LwgmZqGcDZpGz02qSLst2xdMhED6_fxJkLDBowg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 15:29:42 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: davinci: ohci-da8xx: model the vbus GPIO as a
 fixed regulator

czw., 28 mar 2019 o 15:11 Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> napisał(a):
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>
> > >> Can you document why the current solution is not optimal? Is it to make
> > >> future device-tree conversion for these boards easier? Or?
> > >>
> > >
> > > It's sub-optimal from the HW modeling in SW PoV - it is in fact a
> > > regulator enabled/disabled by a GPIO. Also: it's code duplication as
> > > currently we check if the vbus GPIO exists and then use it or check if
> > > the regulator exists and use this as the second choice. The third
> > > patch actually shrinks the driver.
> >
> > I see now that the driver supports controlling the VBUS gpio as
> > regulator already. Something I should have caught in review last time
> > around.
> >
> > I agree this patch is an improvement. Lets see what Alan feels.
>
> I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the patch looks reasonable.
> However, I do wish that in the devm_request_threaded_irq() call, the
> indentation of the continuation lines was left unchanged.
>

I don't think it's possible - the function name is longer and the
first line exceeds the 80 characters limit. I can put all the
parameters below the function name if you prefer that?

Bart

> Alan Stern
>
> > Also, reg_enabled member of da8xx_ohci_hcd structure seems to be pretty
> > useless considering regulator API already has use counting. Can you take
> > a look and remove that too as an added bonus.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sekhar
>
>