linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] gpio: msc313: MStar MSC313 GPIO driver

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: <CAHp75Vdy9rBgJhyYXjUKapYdeMfsNhbX9Zi3Jtxb4H8H279V-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:23:02 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>
Cc:     SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] gpio: msc313: MStar MSC313 GPIO driver

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 1:10 PM Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com> wrote:
>
> This adds a driver that supports the GPIO block found in
> MStar/SigmaStar ARMv7 SoCs.
>
> The controller seems to have enough register for 128 lines
> but where they are wired up differs between chips and
> no currently known chip uses anywhere near 128 lines so there
> needs to be some per-chip data to collect together what lines
> actually have physical pins attached and map the right names to them.
>
> The core peripherals seem to use the same lines on the
> currently known chips but the lines used for the sensor
> interface, lcd controller etc pins seem to be totally
> different between the infinity and mercury chips
>
> The code tries to collect all of the re-usable names,
> offsets etc together so that it's easy to build the extra
> per-chip data for other chips in the future.
>
> So far this only supports the MSC313 and MSC313E chips.
>
> Support for the SSC8336N (mercury5) is trivial to add once
> all of the lines have been mapped out.

...

> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>

Perhaps ordered?

...

> +       /*
> +        * only the spi0 pins have interrupts on the parent
> +        * on all of the known chips and so far they are all
> +        * mapped to the same place
> +        */

You have a different comment style here (no capital letter, no period).

> +       if (offset >= OFF_SPI0_CZ && offset <= OFF_SPI0_DO) {

Why not traditional pattern, i.e.

if (...)
  return -EINVAL;
...

?

> +               *parent_type = child_type;
> +               *parent = ((offset - OFF_SPI0_CZ) >> 2) + 28;
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
> +       return -EINVAL;

...

> +       ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, gpiochip, gpio);
> +       return ret;

Purpose?

return devm_...(...);

...

> +static int msc313_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +       return 0;
> +}

Purpose?

...

> +static const struct of_device_id msc313_gpio_of_match[] = {

> +#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_INFINITY

What's the point? Are you expecting two drivers for the same IP?

> +       {
> +               .compatible = "mstar,msc313-gpio",
> +               .data = &msc313_data,
> +       },
> +#endif
> +       { }
> +};

...

> +static struct platform_driver msc313_gpio_driver = {
> +       .driver = {
> +               .name = DRIVER_NAME,
> +               .of_match_table = msc313_gpio_of_match,
> +               .pm = &msc313_gpio_ops,
> +       },
> +       .probe = msc313_gpio_probe,
> +       .remove = msc313_gpio_remove,
> +};

> +

Redundant blank line.

> +builtin_platform_driver(msc313_gpio_driver);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko