linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Add peripheral charger count API

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:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:23:27 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Daisuke Nojiri <dnojiri@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Add peripheral
 charger count API

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 05:32:51PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Add a peripheral charger count API similar to the one implemented in the
> ChromeOS PCHG driver so we can use it to decide whether or not to
> register the PCHG device in the cros_ec MFD driver.
> 
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> Cc: Daisuke Nojiri <dnojiri@...omium.org>
> Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
> Cc: <chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>

With a minor comment about the naming,
Reviewed-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>

> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/cros_ec_proto.h b/include/linux/platform_data/cros_ec_proto.h
> index df3c78c92ca2..8f5781bc2d7a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/platform_data/cros_ec_proto.h
> +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/cros_ec_proto.h
> @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ u32 cros_ec_get_host_event(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev);
>  bool cros_ec_check_features(struct cros_ec_dev *ec, int feature);
>  
>  int cros_ec_get_sensor_count(struct cros_ec_dev *ec);
> +unsigned int cros_ec_pchg_port_count(struct cros_ec_dev *ec);

I wonder if "cros_ec_get_pchg_port_count" would be a better name for the API.