linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add pwrap driver for MT8186 SoC

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: <f5486d12-b048-c062-e571-cf39da7e4c1b@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:17:37 +0100
From:   Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To:     Johnson Wang <johnson.wang@...iatek.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com,
        Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add pwrap driver for MT8186
 SoC



On 18/01/2022 10:25, Johnson Wang wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On Fri, 2022-01-14 at 16:46 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>
>> On 07/01/2022 11:46, Johnson Wang wrote:
>>> MT8186 are highly integrated SoC and use PMIC_MT6366 for
>>> power management. This patch adds pwrap master driver to
>>> access PMIC_MT6366.
>>>
>>
>> It seems this new arbiter is significantly different from the version
>> 1. Please
>> explain that in the commit message.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Johnson Wang <johnson.wang@...iatek.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 72
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> index 952bc554f443..78866ebf7f04 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>>>    #define PWRAP_GET_WACS_REQ(x)		(((x) >> 19) &
>>> 0x00000001)
>>>    #define PWRAP_STATE_SYNC_IDLE0		BIT(20)
>>>    #define PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0		BIT(21)
>>> +#define PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0_V2	BIT(22)
>>
>> That's a strange name, does it come from the datasheet description?
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> 
> No, there is only PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0 in MT8186 datasheet.
> However, it's the 22nd bit in MT8186 and the 21st bit in other SoCs.
> So we changed its name to avoid redefinition of PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0.
> 
> Could you give us some suggestion on proper definition naming?
> Do you think PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0_MT8186 will be a better choice?
> 

Is this a difference that only will show up on the PMIC-wrapper of MT8186 or 
will other SoCs include the same IP? If not, then PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0_MT8186 
should be fine. Otherwise we would need a better name.

>>
>>>    #define PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE1		BIT(15)
>>>    
>>>    /* macro for WACS FSM */
>>> @@ -77,6 +78,8 @@
>>>    #define PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN	BIT(3)
>>>    #define PWRAP_CAP_WDT_SRC1	BIT(4)
>>>    #define PWRAP_CAP_ARB		BIT(5)
>>> +#define PWRAP_CAP_MONITOR_V2	BIT(6)
>>
>> Not used capability, please delete.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
> 
> PWRAP_CAP_MONITOR_V2 is not used right now.
> We can remove it in next version.
> But this capability will be added when we need it.
> 

That's OK, we should add capability definitions once they are added to the 
driver, not before that.

Thanks,
Matthias