linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] nvmem: lan9662-otp: add support.

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 22:07:02 +0200
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
CC:     <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] nvmem: lan9662-otp: add support.

The 08/30/2022 13:08, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> 
> > +static inline void lan9662_writel(void __iomem *addr, u32 val)
> > +{
> > +     writel(val, addr);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u32 lan9662_readl(void __iomem *addr)
> > +{
> > +     return readl(addr);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> Why these boiler plate functions?

It was more for the style purpose. I will remove these ones.

> 
> > +static inline void lan9662_clrbits(void __iomem *addr, u32 clear)
> > +{
> > +     writel(readl(addr) & ~clear, addr);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void lan9662_setbits(void __iomem *addr, u32 set)
> > +{
> > +     writel(readl(addr) | set, addr);
> > +}
> 
> These two functions are called just once and I see no point in having a
> wrapper function for this, instead you could use them directly or use
> ./include/linux/bitfield.h helper macros.

I will remove also these ones and use them directly.

> 
> > +
> > +static bool lan9662_otp_wait_flag_clear(void __iomem *reg, u32 flag)
> > +{
> > +     u32 val;
> > +
> > +     return readl_poll_timeout(reg, val, !(val & flag),
> > +                               OTP_SLEEP_US, OTP_TIMEOUT_US);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int lan9662_otp_power(struct lan9662_otp *otp, bool up)
> > +{
> > +     if (up) {
> > +             lan9662_clrbits(OTP_OTP_PWR_DN(otp->base),
> > +                             OTP_OTP_PWR_DN_OTP_PWRDN_N);
> > +             if (lan9662_otp_wait_flag_clear(OTP_OTP_STATUS(otp->base),
> > +                                             OTP_OTP_STATUS_OTP_CPUMPEN))
> > +                     return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +     } else {
> > +             lan9662_setbits(OTP_OTP_PWR_DN(otp->base),
> > +                             OTP_OTP_PWR_DN_OTP_PWRDN_N);
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int lan9662_otp_execute(struct lan9662_otp *otp)
> > +{
> > +     if (lan9662_otp_wait_flag_clear(OTP_OTP_CMD_GO(otp->base),
> > +                                     OTP_OTP_CMD_GO_OTP_GO))
> > +             return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +
> > +     if (lan9662_otp_wait_flag_clear(OTP_OTP_STATUS(otp->base),
> > +                                     OTP_OTP_STATUS_OTP_BUSY))
> > +             return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void lan9662_otp_set_address(struct lan9662_otp *otp, u32 offset)
> > +{
> > +     WARN_ON(offset >= OTP_MEM_SIZE);
> > +
> would we ever hit this condition? looks like unecessary check.

That is not the case. I will remove it.

> 
> 
> 

-- 
/Horatiu