linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] mfd: mt6358: refine interrupt code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:31:28 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Hsin-hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
        Josef Friedl <josef.friedl@...ed.at>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] mfd: mt6358: refine interrupt code

On Mon, 03 Aug 2020, Hsin-hsiung Wang wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 16:48 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, Hsin-Hsiung Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > This patch refines the interrupt related code to support new chips.
> > 
> > Refines in what way?
> > 
> > What makes this better?
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the comment. I will add more information into comment message
> based on my below explanation.

Thanks.

> > > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@...iatek.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c        | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > >  include/linux/mfd/mt6358/core.h |  8 ++---
> > >  2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > > index db734f2..4b094e5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > > @@ -13,7 +13,9 @@
> > >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > >  #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > >  
> > > -static struct irq_top_t mt6358_ints[] = {
> > > +#define MTK_PMIC_REG_WIDTH 16
> > > +
> > > +static const struct irq_top_t mt6358_ints[] = {
> > >  	MT6358_TOP_GEN(BUCK),
> > >  	MT6358_TOP_GEN(LDO),
> > >  	MT6358_TOP_GEN(PSC),
> > > @@ -24,6 +26,13 @@ static struct irq_top_t mt6358_ints[] = {
> > >  	MT6358_TOP_GEN(MISC),
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > +static struct pmic_irq_data mt6358_irqd = {
> > > +	.num_top = ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints),
> > > +	.num_pmic_irqs = MT6358_IRQ_NR,
> > > +	.top_int_status_reg = MT6358_TOP_INT_STATUS0,
> > > +	.pmic_ints = mt6358_ints,
> > > +};
> > 
> > Dynamically assigned driver data is usually preferred.
> > 
> > Why have you gone static?
> > 
> 
> Do you consider the memory allocation?
> Below modification is to assign necessary data dynamically and the code
> will become longer with more chips if we assign every member of the
> structure.

[...]

Never mind.  On second glance, this should be fine.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog