| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200415064352.yn7xkvjtsdcvnvni@ROU-LT-M43218B.mchp-main.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:43:52 +0200
From: ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com
To: Eugen Hristev - M18282 <Eugen.Hristev@...rochip.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: split
at91_adc_current_chan_is_touch() helper
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:22:45PM +0000, Eugen Hristev - M18282 wrote:
> On 13.04.2020 20:05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:42:18 +0200
> > Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This change moves the logic to check if the current channel is the
> >> touchscreen channel to a separate helper.
> >> This reduces some code duplication, but the main intent is to re-use this
> >> in the next patches.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>
> > Eugen / Ludovic,
> >
> > Have you had a chance to look at this series?
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Does the patch apply correctly for you ?
No issue on my side to apply them (v5.7-rc1 and next).
> I will try to test it , if I manage to apply it.
> I can only test the ADC though because at this moment I do not have a
> touchscreen at disposal.
Same here, not able to test the touchscreen but it doesn't seem very risky.
>
> Meanwhile, the code looks good for me,
>
> Reviewed-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...rochip.com>
You can add mine as well:
Reviewed-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
Regards
Ludovic
>
> By the way, I do not know if my two pending patches on this driver will
> conflict or not.
>
> Eugen
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >> ---
> >>
> >> This patchset continues discussion:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20191023082508.17583-1-alexandru.ardelean@analog.com/
> >> Apologies for the delay.
> >>
> >> Changelog v1 -> v2:
> >> * added patch 'iio: at91-sama5d2_adc: split at91_adc_current_chan_is_touch()
> >> helper'
> >> * renamed at91_adc_buffer_postenable() -> at91_adc_buffer_preenable()
> >> - at91_adc_buffer_postenable() - now just calls
> >> iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() if the channel isn't the touchscreen
> >> channel
> >> * renamed at91_adc_buffer_predisable() -> at91_adc_buffer_postdisable()
> >> - at91_adc_buffer_predisable() - now just calls
> >> iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() if the channel isn't the touchscreen
> >> channel
> >>
> >> drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 31 +++++++++++++++---------------
> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> >> index a5c7771227d5..f2a74c47c768 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c
> >> @@ -873,18 +873,24 @@ static int at91_adc_dma_start(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static bool at91_adc_current_chan_is_touch(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >> +
> >> + return !!bitmap_subset(indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> >> + &st->touch_st.channels_bitmask,
> >> + AT91_SAMA5D2_MAX_CHAN_IDX + 1);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int at91_adc_buffer_postenable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> >> {
> >> int ret;
> >> struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>
> >> /* check if we are enabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
> >> - if (bitmap_subset(indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> >> - &st->touch_st.channels_bitmask,
> >> - AT91_SAMA5D2_MAX_CHAN_IDX + 1)) {
> >> - /* touchscreen enabling */
> >> + if (at91_adc_current_chan_is_touch(indio_dev))
> >> return at91_adc_configure_touch(st, true);
> >> - }
> >> +
> >> /* if we are not in triggered mode, we cannot enable the buffer. */
> >> if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> @@ -906,12 +912,9 @@ static int at91_adc_buffer_predisable(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> >> u8 bit;
> >>
> >> /* check if we are disabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
> >> - if (bitmap_subset(indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> >> - &st->touch_st.channels_bitmask,
> >> - AT91_SAMA5D2_MAX_CHAN_IDX + 1)) {
> >> - /* touchscreen disable */
> >> + if (at91_adc_current_chan_is_touch(indio_dev))
> >> return at91_adc_configure_touch(st, false);
> >> - }
> >> +
> >> /* if we are not in triggered mode, nothing to do here */
> >> if (!(indio_dev->currentmode & INDIO_ALL_TRIGGERED_MODES))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> @@ -1886,14 +1889,10 @@ static __maybe_unused int at91_adc_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> /* check if we are enabling triggered buffer or the touchscreen */
> >> - if (bitmap_subset(indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> >> - &st->touch_st.channels_bitmask,
> >> - AT91_SAMA5D2_MAX_CHAN_IDX + 1)) {
> >> - /* touchscreen enabling */
> >> + if (at91_adc_current_chan_is_touch(indio_dev))
> >> return at91_adc_configure_touch(st, true);
> >> - } else {
> >> + else
> >> return at91_adc_configure_trigger(st->trig, true);
> >> - }
> >>
> >> /* not needed but more explicit */
> >> return 0;
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists