| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:52:13 -0300
From: Matheus Castello <matheus@...tello.eng.br>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: sre@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] power: supply: max17040: Config alert SOC low
level threshold from FDT
Em 11/1/19 12:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:41:33PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote:
>> For configuration of fuel gauge alert for a low level state of charge
>> interrupt we add a function to config level threshold and a device tree
>> binding property to set it in flatned device tree node.
>>
>> Now we can use "maxim,alert-low-soc-level" property with the values from
>> 1% up to 32% to configure alert interrupt threshold.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@...tello.eng.br>
>> ---
>> drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
>> index 75459f76d02c..802575342c72 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
>> @@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
>> #define MAX17040_DELAY 1000
>> #define MAX17040_BATTERY_FULL 95
>>
>> +#define MAX17040_ATHD_MASK 0xFFC0
>> +#define MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP 4
>> +
>> struct max17040_chip {
>> struct i2c_client *client;
>> struct delayed_work work;
>> @@ -43,6 +46,8 @@ struct max17040_chip {
>> int soc;
>> /* State Of Charge */
>> int status;
>> + /* Low alert threshold from 32% to 1% of the State of Charge */
>> + u32 low_soc_alert_threshold;
>> };
>>
>> static int max17040_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
>> @@ -99,6 +104,22 @@ static void max17040_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
>> max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_CMD, 0x0054);
>> }
>>
>> +static int max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(struct i2c_client *client,
>> + u32 level)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + u16 data;
>> +
>> + level = 32 - level;
>> + data = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP);
>> + /* clear the alrt bit and set LSb 5 bits */
>> + data &= MAX17040_ATHD_MASK;
>> + data |= level;
>> + ret = max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP, data);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void max17040_get_vcell(struct i2c_client *client)
>> {
>> struct max17040_chip *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>> @@ -115,7 +136,6 @@ static void max17040_get_soc(struct i2c_client *client)
>> u16 soc;
>>
>> soc = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_SOC);
>> -
>> chip->soc = (soc >> 8);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -161,6 +181,24 @@ static void max17040_get_status(struct i2c_client *client)
>> chip->status = POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_FULL;
>> }
>>
>> +static int max17040_get_of_data(struct max17040_chip *chip)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = &chip->client->dev;
>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "maxim,alert-low-soc-level",
>> + &chip->low_soc_alert_threshold)) {
>
> Please align the line break with line above. checkpatch --strict might
> give you hints about this.
> >> + chip->low_soc_alert_threshold = MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP;
>> + /* check if low_soc_alert_threshold is between 1% and 32% */
>
> The comment looks misleading here, like it belongs to previous block.
> Maybe put it inside else if {} block?
>
>> + } else if (chip->low_soc_alert_threshold <= 0 ||
>> + chip->low_soc_alert_threshold >= 33){
>
> Missing space before {.
>
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void max17040_check_changes(struct i2c_client *client)
>> {
>> max17040_get_vcell(client);
>> @@ -192,6 +230,10 @@ static irqreturn_t max17040_thread_handler(int id, void *dev)
>> /* send uevent */
>> power_supply_changed(chip->battery);
>>
>> + /* reset alert bit */
>> + max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
>> + chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);
>
> Unless the continuation exceeds 80 character limit, please align it with
> previous line.
>
>> +
>> return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -216,6 +258,7 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> struct i2c_adapter *adapter = client->adapter;
>> struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
>> struct max17040_chip *chip;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE))
>> return -EIO;
>> @@ -226,6 +269,12 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>
>> chip->client = client;
>> chip->pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
>> + ret = max17040_get_of_data(chip);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&client->dev,
>> + "failed: low SOC alert OF data out of bounds\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
>> psy_cfg.drv_data = chip;
>> @@ -242,20 +291,31 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>
>> /* check interrupt */
>> if (client->irq) {
>> - int ret;
>> - unsigned int flags;
>> -
>> - dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
>> - flags = IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT;
>> - ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, NULL,
>> - max17040_thread_handler, flags,
>> - chip->battery->desc->name,
>> - chip);
>> -
>> - if (ret) {
>> - client->irq = 0;
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(client->dev.of_node,
>> + "maxim,max77836-battery")) {
>
> Alignment.
>
>> + ret = max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
>> + chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);
>
> Ditto.
>
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&client->dev,
>> + "Failed to set low SOC alert: err %d\n",
>> + ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
>> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev,
>> + client->irq, NULL, max17040_thread_handler,
>> + (client->flags | IRQF_ONESHOT),
>
> This looks unrelated. Befor ethis were IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
> IRQF_ONESHOT, now you use client->flags. There is no reason why this
> commit should change >
I am using client->flags here to not overwrite the flag passed in device
tree. Let me know what you think about it: if I should leave it as in
the previous commit, or should I modify the previous commit too.
>> + chip->battery->desc->name, chip);
>
> This breaks alignment which was here before.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
Thanks for the review i will work on it.
>> +
>> + if (ret) {
>> + client->irq = 0;
>> + dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> + "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> dev_warn(&client->dev,
>> - "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
>> + "Device not compatible for IRQ");
>> }
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.24.0.rc2
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists