linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hwmon: (pmbus/core): Update regulator flag map

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: <32b17cb1-754f-684b-a7d2-583d2e32030f@9elements.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:25:20 +0530
From:   Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>
Cc:     Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hwmon: (pmbus/core): Update regulator flag map

Hi Guenter,

On 29-11-2022 04:11 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/28/22 09:47, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> Add regulator flag map for PMBUS status byte & status input.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@...ements.com>
> 
> You are adding a lot of input errors here. The regulator documentation
> only covers output errors. I am not sure if this set of changes is
> really appropriate. You'll have to make a much better case for those 
> changes;
> from what I can see they are all controversial and were originally left out
> on purpose.
I felt it may be worth to monitor status input, but you feel otherwise 
then shall I remove this in next revision ?
> 
>> ---
>>   drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c 
>> b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> index 95e95783972a..f5caceaaef2a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> @@ -2752,6 +2752,15 @@ struct pmbus_regulator_status_category {
>>   static const struct pmbus_regulator_status_category 
>> pmbus_regulator_flag_map[] = {
>>       {
>> +        .func = -1,
> 
> This would need a comment. I don't really see the benefit over the original
> code.
I pulled that in so as to handle it in same way as other status register.
> 
>> +        .reg = PMBUS_STATUS_BYTE,
>> +        .bits = (const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc[]) {
>> +            { PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC,   REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT },
>> +            { PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV,   REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT },
>> +            { PB_STATUS_VIN_UV,    REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE },
>> +            { },
>> +        },
>> +    }, {
>>           .func = PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT,
>>           .reg = PMBUS_STATUS_VOUT,
>>           .bits = (const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc[]) {
>> @@ -2768,6 +2777,7 @@ static const struct 
>> pmbus_regulator_status_category pmbus_regulator_flag_map[] =
>>               { PB_IOUT_OC_WARNING,    
>> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT_WARN },
>>               { PB_IOUT_OC_FAULT,      REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT },
>>               { PB_IOUT_OC_LV_FAULT,   REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT },
>> +            { PB_POUT_OP_FAULT,      REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT },
> 
> OP_FAULT (power fault) and over current are really not the same thing.
> 
I agree. But thats best I could think of. Not sure if there is better 
REGULATOR_ERROR_* code for this scenario. Suggestions?
>>               { },
>>           },
>>       }, {
>> @@ -2778,6 +2788,18 @@ static const struct 
>> pmbus_regulator_status_category pmbus_regulator_flag_map[] =
>>               { PB_TEMP_OT_FAULT,      REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_TEMP },
>>               { },
>>           },
>> +    }, {
>> +        .func = PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT,
>> +        .reg = PMBUS_STATUS_INPUT,
>> +        .bits = (const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc[]) {
>> +            { PB_IIN_OC_FAULT,       REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT },
>> +            { PB_IIN_OC_WARNING,     
>> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT_WARN },
>> +            { PB_VOLTAGE_UV_FAULT,   REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE },
>> +            { PB_VOLTAGE_UV_WARNING, 
>> REGULATOR_ERROR_UNDER_VOLTAGE_WARN },
>> +            { PB_VOLTAGE_OV_WARNING, 
>> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_VOLTAGE_WARN },
>> +            { PB_VOLTAGE_OV_FAULT,   
>> REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_VOLTAGE_WARN },
> 
> fault -> warning ? Shouldn't this be REGULATOR_ERROR_FAIL (Regulator
> output has failed) ?
> 
Yes. REGULATOR_ERROR_FAIL is best fit here. Will update in next revision.
>> +            { },
>> +        },
>>       },
>>   };
>> @@ -2834,14 +2856,6 @@ static int 
>> pmbus_regulator_get_error_flags(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned
>>           if (status & PB_STATUS_POWER_GOOD_N)
>>               *flags |= REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT;
>>       }
>> -    /*
>> -     * Unlike most other status bits, PB_STATUS_{IOUT_OC,VOUT_OV} are
>> -     * defined strictly as fault indicators (not warnings).
>> -     */
>> -    if (status & PB_STATUS_IOUT_OC)
>> -        *flags |= REGULATOR_ERROR_OVER_CURRENT;
>> -    if (status & PB_STATUS_VOUT_OV)
>> -        *flags |= REGULATOR_ERROR_REGULATION_OUT;
>>       /*
>>        * If we haven't discovered any thermal faults or warnings via
>>
>> base-commit: 9494c53e1389b120ba461899207ac8a3aab2632c
>