linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 3/6] mfd: pm8008: Add mfd cell struct to register LDOs

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:42:33 +0530
From:   "Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)" <quic_c_skakit@...cinc.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_collinsd@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_subbaram@...cinc.com>, <quic_jprakash@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/6] mfd: pm8008: Add mfd cell struct to register LDOs


On 2/10/2022 7:02 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Satya Priya (2022-02-08 06:52:17)
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8008.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8008.c
>> index c472d7f..e8569cc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8008.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8008.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>   #include <linux/irq.h>
>>   #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>   #include <linux/of_device.h>
>>   #include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> @@ -27,6 +28,37 @@
>>   #define INT_EN_CLR_OFFSET              0x16
>>   #define INT_LATCHED_STS_OFFSET         0x18
>>
>> +static const struct mfd_cell pm8008_regulator_devs[] = {
> Is there some way to not allocate this structure statically forever?


I think No.

I found that some of the drivers are just using one cell with .name to 
match with regulator driver and then probing regulators using a loop. 
I'll do that too.

static const struct mfd_cell pm8008_regulator_devs[] = {
         {
                 .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
         },
  };

>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 0,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 1,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 2,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 3,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 4,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 5,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "qcom,pm8008-regulators",
>> +               .id = 6,
>> +       },
>> +};
>> +
>>   enum {
>>          PM8008_MISC,
>>          pm8008_temp_alarm,
>> @@ -35,6 +67,17 @@ enum {
>>          PM8008_NUM_PERIPHS,
>>   };
>>
>> +enum {
>> +       PM8008_INFRA,
>> +       PM8008_REGULATORS,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id pm8008_match[] = {
>> +       { .compatible = "qcom,pm8008", .data = (void *)PM8008_INFRA},
>> +       { .compatible = "qcom,pm8008-regulators", .data = (void *)PM8008_REGULATORS},
>> +       { },
> Nitpick: Drop , on {} so nothing can come after without causing compile
> error.


Okay.


>> +};
>> +
>>   #define PM8008_PERIPH_0_BASE   0x900
>>   #define PM8008_PERIPH_1_BASE   0x2400
>>   #define PM8008_PERIPH_2_BASE   0xC000
>> @@ -221,6 +264,7 @@ static int pm8008_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>>   {
>>          int rc;
>>          struct pm8008_data *chip;
>> +       const struct of_device_id *id;
>>
>>          chip = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>>          if (!chip)
>> @@ -239,14 +283,19 @@ static int pm8008_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>>                          dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to probe irq periphs: %d\n", rc);
>>          }
>>
>> +       id = of_match_node(pm8008_match, chip->dev->of_node);
> Use device_get_match_data()? And then use (uintptr_t) casts to check for
> the enum? Using device_get_match_data() allows us to avoid moving the
> pm8008_match table.


Okay.


>> +       if (id->data == (void *)PM8008_REGULATORS) {
> 	enum <your_name_here> dev_type = device_get_match_data(dev);
>
> 	if (dev_type == PM8008_REGULATORS)
>
>> +               rc = mfd_add_devices(chip->dev, 0, pm8008_regulator_devs,
> Why not devm_mfd_add_devices()?


Okay.


>> +                               ARRAY_SIZE(pm8008_regulator_devs), NULL, 0, NULL);
>> +               if (rc) {
>> +                       dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to add children: %d\n", rc);
>> +                       return rc;
>> +               }
>> +       }
>> +
>>          return devm_of_platform_populate(chip->dev);
>>   }
>>
>> -static const struct of_device_id pm8008_match[] = {
>> -       { .compatible = "qcom,pm8008", },
>> -       { },
>> -};
> This should have a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pm8008_match) here.


Okay.


>> -
>>   static struct i2c_driver pm8008_mfd_driver = {
>>          .driver = {
>>                  .name = "pm8008",