| 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: <CAHp75VegoXJmi1rDg_-ePKqoo69Jdt7NBchCTE=bPAdJqrgYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 13:21:47 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jishnu Prakash <jprakash@...eaurora.org>
Cc: agross@...nel.org, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
smohanad@...eaurora.org, kgunda@...eaurora.org,
aghayal@...eaurora.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] iio: adc: Add support for PMIC7 ADC
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:48 AM Jishnu Prakash <jprakash@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> The ADC architecture on PMIC7 is changed as compared to PMIC5. The
> major change from PMIC5 is that all SW communication to ADC goes through
> PMK8350, which communicates with other PMICs through PBS when the ADC
> on PMK8350 works in master mode. The SID register is used to identify the
> PMICs with which the PBS needs to communicate. Add support for the same.
Please, split pr_*() -> dev_*() to separate patch. Also think about
other logical pieces you may split out.
...
> +static const struct adc5_data adc7_data_pmic;
Global variable? Hmm...
...
> + int ret;
> + u8 conv_req = 0, buf[4];
> +
> + ret = adc5_masked_write(adc, ADC_APP_SID, ADC_APP_SID_MASK, prop->sid);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = adc5_read(adc, ADC5_USR_DIG_PARAM, buf, sizeof(buf));
> + if (ret < 0)
Does > 0 have a meaning?
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Digital param selection */
> + adc5_update_dig_param(adc, prop, &buf[0]);
> +
> + /* Update fast average sample value */
> + buf[1] &= 0xff & ~ADC5_USR_FAST_AVG_CTL_SAMPLES_MASK;
What the point of 0xff & part?
> + buf[1] |= prop->avg_samples;
> +
> + /* Select ADC channel */
> + buf[2] = prop->channel;
> +
> + /* Select HW settle delay for channel */
> + buf[3] &= 0xff & ~ADC5_USR_HW_SETTLE_DELAY_MASK;
Ditto.
> + buf[3] |= prop->hw_settle_time;
...
> +static int adc7_do_conversion(struct adc5_chip *adc,
> + struct adc5_channel_prop *prop,
> + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
> + u16 *data_volt, u16 *data_cur)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + u8 status = 0;
Redundant assignment.
> + mutex_lock(&adc->lock);
> +
> + ret = adc7_configure(adc, prop);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(adc->dev, "ADC configure failed with %d\n", ret);
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> + /* No support for polling mode at present*/
Missed space
> + wait_for_completion_timeout(&adc->complete, ADC7_CONV_TIMEOUT);
> +
> + ret = adc5_read(adc, ADC5_USR_STATUS1, &status, 1);
> + if (ret < 0)
Remove all ' < 0' where it is not needed.
> + goto unlock;
> +
> + if (status & ADC5_USR_STATUS1_CONV_FAULT) {
> + dev_err(adc->dev, "Unexpected conversion fault\n");
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> + ret = adc5_read_voltage_data(adc, data_volt);
> +
> +unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&adc->lock);
...
> + for (i = 0; i < adc->nchannels; i++) {
> + v_channel = (adc->chan_props[i].sid << ADC_CHANNEL_OFFSET |
> + adc->chan_props[i].channel);
Too many parentheses or they are in a wrong position. I don't remember
operator precedence by heart.
> + if (v_channel == iiospec->args[0])
> + return i;
> + }
...
> + /*
> + * Value read from "reg" is virtual channel number
> + * virtual channel number = (sid << 8 | channel number).
Too many parentheses. And perhaps formulas better to have on a separate line.
> + */
...
> +static const struct vadc_map_pt adcmap7_100k[] = {
> + { 4250657, -40960 },
> + { 3962085, -39936 },
> + { 419448, -3072 },
> + { 396851, -2048 },
> + { 375597, -1024 },
> + { 355598, 0 },
> + { 336775, 1024 },
> + { 319052, 2048 },
> + { 302359, 3072 },
> + { 2560, 128000 },
> + { 2489, 129024 },
> + { 2420, 130048 }
> +};
I'm wondering why you have second column here? Can't you derive it
from index? Seems to me pretty easy calculus.
...
> + int ret, result = 0;
Redundant assignment.
> + if (adc_code >= RATIO_MAX_ADC7)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* (ADC code * R_PULLUP (100Kohm)) / (full_scale_code - ADC code)*/
> + resistance *= R_PU_100K;
> + resistance = div64_s64(resistance, RATIO_MAX_ADC7 - adc_code);
> +
> + ret = qcom_vadc_map_voltage_temp(adcmap7_100k,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(adcmap7_100k),
> + resistance, &result);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + *result_mdec = result;
...
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(adcmap7_die_temp); i++)
> + if (adcmap7_die_temp[i].x > voltage)
> + break;
> +
> + if (i == 0) {
> + *result_mdec = DIE_TEMP_ADC7_SCALE_1;
> + } else if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(adcmap7_die_temp)) {
> + *result_mdec = DIE_TEMP_ADC7_MAX;
I think you can done these checks before loop, and return immediately.
> + } else {
> + vtemp0 = adcmap7_die_temp[i - 1].x;
> + voltage = voltage - vtemp0;
> + temp = div64_s64(voltage * DIE_TEMP_ADC7_SCALE_FACTOR,
> + adcmap7_die_temp[i - 1].y);
> + temp += DIE_TEMP_ADC7_SCALE_1 + (DIE_TEMP_ADC7_SCALE_2 * (i - 1));
> + *result_mdec = temp;
> + }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists