linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/11] platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Provide software nodes for the devices

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: <20190409124113.GB20058@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:41:13 +0300
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] platform/x86: intel_cht_int33fe: Provide software
 nodes for the devices

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:09:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Software nodes provide two features that we will need later.
> > 1) Software nodes can have references to other software nodes.
> > 2) Software nodes can exist before a device entry is created.
> 
> >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >  #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/pci.h>
> 
> I understand your attitude to ordering here, but we already have it
> ordered, why not to keep it that way?

Sure. I'll keep the order.

> > -static struct i2c_client *cht_int33fe_find_max17047(void)
> > -{
> > -       struct i2c_client *max17047 = NULL;
> > -
> > -       i2c_for_each_dev(&max17047, cht_int33fe_check_for_max17047);
> > -       return max17047;
> > -}
> 
> This sounds like a cleanup patch before actual change.
> And I'm not sure, do we need to remove this function?
> 
> > +static int
> > +cht_int33fe_max17047(struct device *dev, struct cht_int33fe_data *data)
> > +{
> > +       struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = data->node[INT33FE_NODE_MAX17047];
> > +       struct i2c_client *max17047 = NULL;
> > +       struct i2c_board_info board_info;
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       i2c_for_each_dev(&max17047, cht_int33fe_check_for_max17047);
> > +       if (max17047) {
> > +               /* Pre-existing i2c-client for the max17047, add device-props */
> > +               max17047->dev.fwnode->secondary = fwnode;
> > +               /* And re-probe to get the new device-props applied. */
> > +               ret = device_reprobe(&max17047->dev);
> > +               if (ret)
> > +                       dev_warn(dev, "Reprobing max17047 error: %d\n", ret);
> > +               return 0;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       memset(&board_info, 0, sizeof(board_info));
> > +       strlcpy(board_info.type, "max17047", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> > +       board_info.dev_name = "max17047";
> > +       board_info.fwnode = fwnode;
> > +       data->max17047 = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, 1, &board_info);
> > +       if (IS_ERR(data->max17047))
> > +               return PTR_ERR(data->max17047);
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> 
> This looks like a split from the original code with some changes.
> Perhaps, split patch first.
> 
> >         /* Work around BIOS bug, see comment on cht_int33fe_find_max17047 */
> 
> After this patch, the comment here become outdated, care to fix?
> 
> > +       ret = cht_int33fe_max17047(dev, data);
> 
> Seems like the verb is missed in the name of the function.

Yeah, I never meant to rename the function. I'll just keep the
function name as cht_int33fe_find_max17047.


thanks,

-- 
heikki