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: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 09:27:07 -0600 From: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org> To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com> Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Oskari Lemmela <oskari@...mela.net>, Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...tlin.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH v2 2/9] power: supply: axp20x_ac_power: Fix reporting online status Hi Julian, On 1/5/20 7:00 AM, Julian Calaby wrote: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:24 PM Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org> wrote: >> >> AXP803/AXP813 have a flag that enables/disables the AC power supply >> input. This flag does not affect the status bits in PWR_INPUT_STATUS. >> Its effect can be verified by checking the battery charge/discharge >> state (bit 2 of PWR_INPUT_STATUS), or by examining the current draw on >> the AC input. >> >> Take this flag into account when getting the ONLINE property of the AC >> input, on PMICs where this flag is present. >> >> Fixes: 7693b5643fd2 ("power: supply: add AC power supply driver for AXP813") >> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org> >> --- >> drivers/power/supply/axp20x_ac_power.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_ac_power.c b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_ac_power.c >> index 0d34a932b6d5..ca0a28f72a27 100644 >> --- a/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_ac_power.c >> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/axp20x_ac_power.c >> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ >> #define AXP20X_PWR_STATUS_ACIN_PRESENT BIT(7) >> #define AXP20X_PWR_STATUS_ACIN_AVAIL BIT(6) >> >> +#define AXP813_ACIN_PATH_SEL BIT(7) >> + >> #define AXP813_VHOLD_MASK GENMASK(5, 3) >> #define AXP813_VHOLD_UV_TO_BIT(x) ((((x) / 100000) - 40) << 3) >> #define AXP813_VHOLD_REG_TO_UV(x) \ >> @@ -40,6 +42,7 @@ struct axp20x_ac_power { >> struct power_supply *supply; >> struct iio_channel *acin_v; >> struct iio_channel *acin_i; >> + bool has_acin_path_sel; >> }; >> >> static irqreturn_t axp20x_ac_power_irq(int irq, void *devid) >> @@ -86,6 +89,17 @@ static int axp20x_ac_power_get_property(struct power_supply *psy, >> return ret; >> >> val->intval = !!(reg & AXP20X_PWR_STATUS_ACIN_AVAIL); >> + >> + /* ACIN_PATH_SEL disables ACIN even if ACIN_AVAIL is set. */ >> + if (power->has_acin_path_sel) { > > Do we need to check this bit if ACIN_AVAIL is not set? No, we don't. However due to regcache this won't actually cause another read from the device. If I send a v3, I'll move the && to the if statement. >> + ret = regmap_read(power->regmap, AXP813_ACIN_PATH_CTRL, >> + ®); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + >> + val->intval &= !!(reg & AXP813_ACIN_PATH_SEL); > > If we only check this bit if ACIN_AVAIL is set, then we don't need the > "&" in the "&=". (I'm assuming that val->intval is an int, not a bool, > otherwise this is the wrong operator) val->intval is an int, but it only ever takes the values 0 or 1. The !! expression coerces an integer to the range of a boolean. So the two ways of deriving the value ("&=" here vs "&& val->intval" in the if statement) are equivalent. > Thanks, Thanks! Samuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists