linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 6/7] soc: starfive: Add dphy pmu 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <68839732-2d3f-aafc-8744-550f4bfa27f0@starfivetech.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:19:27 +0800
From:   Changhuang Liang <changhuang.liang@...rfivetech.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/7] soc: starfive: Add dphy pmu support



On 2023/4/12 5:15, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:47:42PM -0700, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>> Add dphy pmu to turn on/off the dphy power switch.
[...]
>> +
>>  static int jh71xx_pmu_set_state(struct jh71xx_pmu_dev *pmd, u32 mask, bool on)
>>  {
>>  	struct jh71xx_pmu *pmu = pmd->pmu;
>> @@ -191,6 +213,8 @@ static int jh71xx_pmu_set_state(struct jh71xx_pmu_dev *pmd, u32 mask, bool on)
>>  
>>  	if (pmu->match_data->pmu_type == JH71XX_PMU_GENERAL)
>>  		ret = jh71xx_pmu_general_set_state(pmd, mask, on);
>> +	else if (pmu->match_data->pmu_type == JH71XX_PMU_DPHY)
>> +		ret = jh71xx_pmu_dphy_set_state(pmd, mask, on);
> 
> Perhaps I am verging on over-complication, but I dislike this carry on.
> Is this the only time we'll see a power domain provider coming out of
> a syscon, or are there likely to be more?
> Either way, I think having an ops struct w/ both parse_dt() and the
> set_state() implementations would be neater than what you have here.
> 

OK, I will use call back make here neater.

> Very much open to dissenting opinions there though. Emil? Walker?
> 
> Cheers,
> Conor.
> 
>>  
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
[...]
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>