linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] iio: frequency: adrf6780: add support for ADRF6780

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]

Message-ID: <20210724172642.27b4d8c0@jic23-huawei>
Date:   Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:26:42 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     "Miclaus, Antoniu" <Antoniu.Miclaus@...log.com>
Cc:     "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] iio: frequency: adrf6780: add support for
 ADRF6780

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:34:08 +0000
"Miclaus, Antoniu" <Antoniu.Miclaus@...log.com> wrote:

> Hello Jonathan,
...
> > > +
> > > +	enable_reg = FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_VGA_BUFFER_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >vga_buff_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_DETECTOR_EN_MSK, 1) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_LO_BUFFER_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >lo_buff_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_IF_MODE_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >if_mode_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_IQ_MODE_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >iq_mode_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_LO_X2_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >lo_x2_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_LO_PPF_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >lo_ppf_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_LO_EN_MSK, dev->lo_en) |
> > > +			FIELD_PREP(ADRF6780_UC_BIAS_EN_MSK, dev-
> > >uc_bias_en);  
> > 
> > Here we are probably turning on a bunch of stuff which will result in power
> > usage.
> > Would it be sensible to turn it off again in remove path?  (devm managed
> > should be fine).  
> 
> Most of these attributes are enabled by default after device reset.
> Taking into account this statement, is it still worth adding a 'custom' remove path?

Perhaps a nice to have if they save power.
Got to love hardware that eats power until you load a driver!

Ah well,

Jonathan