linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl and GPIOs

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: <CAHp75VdNgBv5yVTXzDpY3rrF31p=p99cfXdEs0q7m8VmLLJwbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2023 19:48:31 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com>
Cc:     linus.walleij@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        a.zummo@...ertech.it, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, jpanis@...libre.com,
        jneanne@...libre.com, aseketeli@...libre.com, sterzik@...com,
        u-kumar1@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl
 and GPIOs

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 4:05 PM Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com> wrote:
> On Fri May 12, 2023 at 7:07 PM CEST,  wrote:
> > Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:17:54PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:

...

> > > +config PINCTRL_TPS6594
> > > +   tristate "Pinctrl and GPIO driver for TI TPS6594 PMIC"
> > > +   depends on MFD_TPS6594
> > > +   default MFD_TPS6594
> > > +   select PINMUX
> > > +   select GPIOLIB
> > > +   select REGMAP
> > > +   select GPIO_REGMAP
> > > +   help
> > > +     This driver supports GPIOs and pinmuxing for the TPS6594
> > > +     PMICs chip family.
> >
> > Module name?
>
> I'm not sure to understand what you are looking for. Something like this
> ?:
>
> To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> module will be called pinctrl-tps6594.

Yes.

...

> > > +   pinctrl->pctl_dev =
> > > +           devm_pinctrl_register(&pdev->dev, pctrl_desc, pinctrl);
> >
> > One line?
>
> I use clang-format quite extensively so I would rather keep it like
> that to still be able to just run it over the whole file without having
> to fix this line every time.
> If you feel like I should not respect the 80 columns recommendation, I
> will fix it.

As you wish.

...

> > > -#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)          (0x31 + (gpio_inst))
> > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF                             0x31
> > > +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)  (TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF + (gpio_inst))
> >
> > Why? The original code with parameter 0 will issue the same.
>
> I felt that replacing 0x31 with a constant would make the computation
> in TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONFIG more understandable. What do you think?

The question is why that register is so special that you need to have
it as a constant explicitly?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko