linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 4/4] power: supply: bq25150 introduce the bq25150

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5792b63e-37cc-7110-4767-df300385eb7b@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 17:20:27 -0500
From:   Ricardo Rivera-Matos <r-rivera-matos@...com>
To:     "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>, <sre@...nel.org>,
        <pali@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     <dmurphy@...com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <sspatil@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/4] power: supply: bq25150 introduce the bq25150


On 5/28/20 9:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 5/28/20 10:05 AM, Ricardo Rivera-Matos wrote:
>> +static int bq2515x_set_precharge_current(struct bq2515x_device *bq2515x,
>> +					int val)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +	unsigned int pchrgctrl;
>> +	unsigned int icharge_range;
>> +	unsigned int precharge_reg_code;
>> +	u16 precharge_multiplier = BQ2515X_ICHG_RNG_1B0_UA;
>> +	u16 precharge_max_ua = BQ2515X_PRECHRG_ICHRG_RNGE_1875_UA;
>
> Why u16? looks like it gets promoted everywhere it's used anyway.
ACK
>
>
>> +
>> +	ret = regmap_read(bq2515x->regmap, BQ2515X_PCHRGCTRL, &pchrgctrl);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	icharge_range = pchrgctrl & BQ2515X_ICHARGE_RANGE;
>> +
>> +	if (icharge_range) {
>> +		precharge_max_ua = BQ2515X_PRECHRG_ICHRG_RNGE_3750_UA;
>> +		precharge_multiplier = BQ2515X_ICHG_RNG_1B1_UA;
> This is a little hard to read when we have a default value overwritten
> in an if, it basically hides the else logic, suggest:
>
>
> if (icharge_range) {
> 	precharge_max_ua = BQ2515X_PRECHRG_ICHRG_RNGE_3750_UA;
> 	precharge_multiplier = BQ2515X_ICHG_RNG_1B1_UA;
> } else {
> 	precharge_max_ua = BQ2515X_PRECHRG_ICHRG_RNGE_1875_UA;
> 	precharge_multiplier = BQ2515X_ICHG_RNG_1B0_UA;
> }
ACK. I originally had it as an if/else deal, but I got feedback it was 
too verbose. It will stay verbose.
>
>
>> +	}
>> +	if (val > precharge_max_ua || val < BQ2515X_ICHG_MIN_UA)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	precharge_reg_code = val / precharge_multiplier;
>> +
>> +	ret = bq2515x_set_charge_disable(bq2515x, 1);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = regmap_update_bits(bq2515x->regmap, BQ2515X_PCHRGCTRL,
>> +				BQ2515X_PRECHARGE_MASK, precharge_reg_code);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	return bq2515x_set_charge_disable(bq2515x, 0);
>> +}
> [snip]
>
>> +
>> +static int bq2515x_set_ilim_lvl(struct bq2515x_device *bq2515x, int val)
>> +{
>> +	int i = 0;
>> +	unsigned int array_size = ARRAY_SIZE(bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values);
>> +
>> +	if (val >= bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[array_size - 1]) {
>
> Isn't this check the same as is done in first iteration of the below loop?
>
> Andrew
ACK
>
>
>> +		i = array_size - 1;
>> +	} else {
>> +		for (i = array_size - 1; i > 0; i--) {
>> +			if (val >= bq2515x_ilim_lvl_values[i])
>> +				break;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +	return regmap_write(bq2515x->regmap, BQ2515X_ILIMCTRL, i);
>> +}
>> +