linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] power: supply: max8997

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: <20210309084658.4a140b92@focal-fossa>
Date:   Tue, 09 Mar 2021 07:47:07 +0000
From:   Timon Baetz <timon.baetz@...tonmail.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] power: supply: max8997_charger: Switch to new binding

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:03:35 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:26:42AM +0000, Timon Baetz wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 18:28:40 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 05:30:14PM +0000, Timon Baetz wrote:
> > > > Get regulator from parent device's node and extcon by name.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Timon Baetz <timon.baetz@...tonmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/power/supply/max8997_charger.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max8997_charger.c b/drivers/power/supply/max8997_charger.c
> > > > index 321bd6b8ee41..625d8cc4312a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/power/supply/max8997_charger.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/power/supply/max8997_charger.c
> > > > @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ static int max8997_battery_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >  	int ret = 0;
> > > >  	struct charger_data *charger;
> > > >  	struct max8997_dev *iodev = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > > > +	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > > >  	struct i2c_client *i2c = iodev->i2c;
> > > >  	struct max8997_platform_data *pdata = iodev->pdata;
> > > >  	struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
> > > > @@ -237,20 +238,23 @@ static int max8997_battery_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >  		return PTR_ERR(charger->battery);
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > > +	// grab regulator from parent device's node
> > > > +	pdev->dev.of_node = iodev->dev->of_node;
> > > >  	charger->reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "charger");
> > > > +	pdev->dev.of_node = np;
> > >
> > > I think the device does not have its own node anymore. Or did I miss
> > > something?
> >
> > The idea is to reset of_node to whatever it was before (NULL) and basically
> > leave the device unchanged. Probe might run again because of deferral.
>
> Good point.
>
> >
> > > >  	if (IS_ERR(charger->reg)) {
> > > >  		if (PTR_ERR(charger->reg) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > >  			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > > >  		dev_info(&pdev->dev, "couldn't get charger regulator\n");
> > > >  	}
> > > > -	charger->edev = extcon_get_edev_by_phandle(&pdev->dev, 0);
> > > > -	if (IS_ERR(charger->edev)) {
> > > > -		if (PTR_ERR(charger->edev) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > > +	charger->edev = extcon_get_extcon_dev("max8997-muic");
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(charger->edev)) {
> > > > +		if (!charger->edev)
> > >
> > > Isn't NULL returned when there is simply no extcon? It's different than
> > > deferred probe. Returning here EPROBE_DEFER might lead to infinite probe
> > > tries (on every new device probe) instead of just failing it.
> >
> > extcon_get_extcon_dev() just loops through all registered extcon devices
> > and compared names. It will return NULL when "max8997-muic" isn't
> > registered yet. extcon_get_extcon_dev() never returns EPROBE_DEFER so
> > checking for NULL seems to be the only way. Other drivers using that
> > function also do NULL check and return EPROBE_DEFER.
>
> Indeed, thanks for clarification. Looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>

Is something blocking this from being accepted?

Timon