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: <CSOGQIRNP61G.1Q2A4ZXB43YYQ@burritosblues>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 11:58:57 +0200
From:   "Esteban Blanc" <eblanc@...libre.com>
To:     "Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko@...il.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 6:48 PM CEST, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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:

...

> > > > -#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?

It is not special, it's just the first one of the serie of config
registers. I felt like just having 0x31 without context was a bit weird

Best regards,

-- 
Esteban Blanc
BayLibre