| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ccfa3067-302f-56a9-cbf7-6ba14350718a@9elements.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:17:03 +0530
From: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: pm_bus: core: Implement regulator get_status
Hi Guenter,
On 18-11-2022 04:08 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 08:43:51PM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> From: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
>>
>> Add get_status for pmbus_regulator_ops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@...ements.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> index 7ec04934747e..d5e2b0662da5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> @@ -2851,6 +2851,83 @@ static int pmbus_regulator_get_error_flags(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int pmbus_regulator_get_status(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = rdev_get_dev(rdev);
>> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev->parent);
>> + struct pmbus_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>> + u8 page = rdev_get_id(rdev);
>> + int status, status2;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> + status = pmbus_get_status(client, page, PMBUS_STATUS_WORD);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + if (status < 0)
>> + return status;
>> +
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_VIN_UV ||
>> + status & PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC ||
>> + status & PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV ||
>> + status & PB_STATUS_UNKNOWN)
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_ERROR;
>
> if (status & (PB_STATUS_VIN_UV | PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC | ...))
>
> PB_STATUS_UNKNOWN can mean anything and doesn't necessarily indicate
> an error. Not sure if it makes sense to report that as error.
I wasn't sure about this but as per spec, it still means unknown fault
or warning. Thats why I've considered it for returning error status.
>
>> +
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV &&
>
> PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV was checked above already, and the code won't get here
> if the bit is set.
Oh yes. Will change to PB_STATUS_VOUT so that other VOUT faults can be
checked.
>
>> + data->info->func[page] & PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT) {
>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> + status2 = _pmbus_read_byte_data(client, page, PMBUS_STATUS_VOUT);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + if (status2 < 0)
>> + return status2;
>> + if (status2 & PB_VOLTAGE_OV_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_VOLTAGE_UV_FAULT)
>
> if (status2 & (...))
>
Sure will update this way.
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_ERROR;
>> + }
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC &&
>
> Same as above - this condition will never be true.
>
Will change to PB_STATUS_IOUT_POUT so that STATUS_IOUT can be checked
for other faults related to POUT & IOUT which aren't present in STATUS_WORD.
>> + data->info->func[page] & PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT) {
>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> + status2 = _pmbus_read_byte_data(client, page, PMBUS_STATUS_IOUT);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + if (status2 < 0)
>> + return status2;
>> + if (status2 & PB_POUT_OP_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_IOUT_UC_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_IOUT_OC_LV_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_IOUT_OC_FAULT)
>
> if (status2 & (...))
>
Will update accordingly.
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_ERROR;
>> + }
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_VIN_UV &&
>
> and again.
>
Will update to PB_STATUS_INPUT.
>> + data->info->func[page] & PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT) {
>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> + status2 = _pmbus_read_byte_data(client, page, PMBUS_STATUS_INPUT);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + if (status2 < 0)
>> + return status2;
>> + if (status2 & PB_IIN_OC_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_VOLTAGE_OV_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_VOLTAGE_UV_FAULT)
>
> and again
>
Will update to right way.
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_ERROR;
>> + }
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_TEMPERATURE &&
>> + data->info->func[page] & PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP) {
>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> + status2 = _pmbus_read_byte_data(client, page, PMBUS_STATUS_TEMPERATURE);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + if (status2 < 0)
>> + return status2;
>> + if (status2 & PB_TEMP_UT_FAULT ||
>> + status2 & PB_TEMP_OT_FAULT)
>
> and again
>
Will update.
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_ERROR;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_OFF)
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_OFF;
>> +
>> + if (status & PB_STATUS_POWER_GOOD_N)
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_OFF;
>
> Wouldn't it be better to check those bits first ?
> Also, it should be
>
> if (status & (PB_STATUS_OFF | PB_STATUS_POWER_GOOD_N))
>
Yes makes sense. Will update.
>> +
>> + return REGULATOR_STATUS_ON;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int pmbus_regulator_get_low_margin(struct i2c_client *client, int page)
>> {
>> struct pmbus_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>> @@ -2991,6 +3068,7 @@ const struct regulator_ops pmbus_regulator_ops = {
>> .disable = pmbus_regulator_disable,
>> .is_enabled = pmbus_regulator_is_enabled,
>> .get_error_flags = pmbus_regulator_get_error_flags,
>> + .get_status = pmbus_regulator_get_status,
>> .get_voltage = pmbus_regulator_get_voltage,
>> .set_voltage = pmbus_regulator_set_voltage,
>> .list_voltage = pmbus_regulator_list_voltage,
>>
>> base-commit: 27fea302952d8c90cafbdbee96bafeca03544401
>> --
>> 2.37.3
>>
Regards,
Naresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists