| 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: <a1779c73437045b002005865356a7e51031742c2.camel@yadro.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 18:20:11 +0300
From: Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
CC: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: proximity: vcnl3020: add proximity rate
On Sun, 2021-02-21 at 15:20 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:53:45 +0300
> Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com> wrote:
>
> > Add the proximity rate optional option and handling of it for
> > vishay vcnl3020.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com>
> Hi Ivan,
>
> Other than dropping the dt part this mostly looks fine.
> Please also implement the read_avail callback to let userspace know the
> valid set of values.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan
>
Ok, I'll get rid of dt part then. Thanks for review.
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/proximity/vcnl3020.c | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/vcnl3020.c
> > b/drivers/iio/proximity/vcnl3020.c
> > index 37264f801ad0..833c5d5ac0a1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/vcnl3020.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/vcnl3020.c
> > @@ -40,6 +40,17 @@
> > #define VCNL_ON_DEMAND_TIMEOUT_US 100000
> > #define VCNL_POLL_US 20000
> >
> > +static const int vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency[][2] = {
> > + {1, 950000},
> > + {3, 906250},
> > + {7, 812500},
> > + {16, 625000},
> > + {31, 250000},
> > + {62, 500000},
> > + {125, 0},
> > + {250, 0},
> > +};
> > +
> > /**
> > * struct vcnl3020_data - vcnl3020 specific data.
> > * @regmap: device register map.
> > @@ -75,12 +86,37 @@ static u32 microamp_to_reg(u32 *val)
> > return *val /= 10000;
> > };
> >
> > +static u32 hz_to_reg(u32 *val)
> Hmm. This is rather odd in the existing driver. It makes no sense
> to have callbacks like this that both modify the value passed by pointer
> and return it.
>
> Much cleaner to just pass by value and make caller do the assignment.
>
> Given I've suggested you drop this anyway probably not that important!
Good point anyways.
> > +{
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + int index = -1;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency); i++) {
> > + if (*val == vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency[i][0]) {
> > + index = i;
>
> return i;
>
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + *val = index;
> > + if (index < 0)
> > + *val = 0;
> > +
> > + return *val;
> > +};
> > +
> > static struct vcnl3020_property vcnl3020_led_current_property = {
> > .name = "vishay,led-current-microamp",
> > .reg = VCNL_LED_CURRENT,
> > .conversion_func = microamp_to_reg,
> > };
> >
> > +static struct vcnl3020_property vcnl3020_proximity_rate_property = {
> > + .name = "vishay,proximity-rate-hz",
> > + .reg = VCNL_PROXIMITY_RATE,
> > + .conversion_func = hz_to_reg,
> > +};
> > +
> > static int vcnl3020_get_and_apply_property(struct vcnl3020_data *data,
> > struct vcnl3020_property prop)
> > {
> > @@ -125,8 +161,18 @@ static int vcnl3020_init(struct vcnl3020_data *data)
> > data->rev = reg;
> > mutex_init(&data->lock);
> >
> > - return vcnl3020_get_and_apply_property(data,
> > - vcnl3020_led_current_property);
> > + rc = vcnl3020_get_and_apply_property(data,
> > + vcnl3020_led_current_property);
> > + if (rc) {
> > + goto err_prop_set;
>
> Kernel style has not brackets around single line blocks like this.
> if (rc)
> goto err_prop_set;
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + rc = vcnl3020_get_and_apply_property(data,
> > + vcnl3020_proximity_rate_property);
>
> From review of binding doc, I don't think this makes a much sense as a
> dt property.
>
> > +
> > +err_prop_set:
> > +
> > + return rc;
> > };
> >
> > static int vcnl3020_measure_proximity(struct vcnl3020_data *data, int *val)
> > @@ -165,10 +211,50 @@ static int vcnl3020_measure_proximity(struct
> > vcnl3020_data *data, int *val)
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > +static int vcnl3020_read_proxy_samp_freq(struct vcnl3020_data *data, int
> > *val,
> > + int *val2)
> > +{
> > + int rc;
> > + unsigned int prox_rate;
> > +
> > + rc = regmap_read(data->regmap, VCNL_PROXIMITY_RATE, &prox_rate);
> > + if (rc)
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + if (prox_rate >= ARRAY_SIZE(vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + *val = vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency[prox_rate][0];
> > + *val2 = vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency[prox_rate][1];
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int vcnl3020_write_proxy_samp_freq(struct vcnl3020_data *data, int
> > val,
> > + int val2)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + int index = -1;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency); i++) {
> > + if (val == vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency[i][0] &&
> > + val2 == vcnl3020_prox_sampling_frequency[i][1]) {
> return regmap_write(data->regmap,
> VCNL_PROXIMITY_RATE, index);
>
> > + index = i;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> return -EINVAL;
>
> Would probably be easier to read.
> > +
> > + if (index < 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + return regmap_write(data->regmap, VCNL_PROXIMITY_RATE, index);
> > +}
> > +
> > static const struct iio_chan_spec vcnl3020_channels[] = {
> > {
> > .type = IIO_PROXIMITY,
> > - .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW),
> > + .info_mask_separate = BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW) |
> > + BIT(IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ),
> > },
> > };
> >
> > @@ -185,13 +271,44 @@ static int vcnl3020_read_raw(struct iio_dev
> > *indio_dev,
> > if (rc)
> > return rc;
> > return IIO_VAL_INT;
> > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ:
> > + rc = vcnl3020_read_proxy_samp_freq(data, val, val2);
> > + if (rc < 0)
> > + return rc;
> > + return IIO_VAL_INT_PLUS_MICRO;
> > default:
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int vcnl3020_write_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
> > + int val, int val2, long mask)
> > +{
> > + int rc;
> > + struct vcnl3020_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > +
> > + rc = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> > + if (rc)
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > + switch (mask) {
> > + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SAMP_FREQ:
>
> You could simplify the flow by moving the iio_device_claim_direct_mode()
> and iio_deivce_release_direct_mode() to this case statement. That way
> the default path can return directly.
>
Yeap.
> > + rc = vcnl3020_write_proxy_samp_freq(data, val, val2);
> > + goto end;
> > + default:
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
> > + goto end;
> > + }
> > +
> > +end:
> > + iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> > + return rc;
> > +}
> > +
> > static const struct iio_info vcnl3020_info = {
> > .read_raw = vcnl3020_read_raw,
> > + .write_raw = vcnl3020_write_raw,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct regmap_config vcnl3020_regmap_config = {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists