linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 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: <ZG0QmjZwvzWbNwA4@surfacebook>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 22:14:34 +0300
From:   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, u-kumar1@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] pinctrl: tps6594: Add driver for TPS6594 pinctrl
 and GPIOs

Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:31:14PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:
> TI TPS6594 PMIC has 11 GPIOs which can be used
> for different functions.
> 
> This patch adds a pinctrl and GPIO drivers in
> order to use those functions.

...

> +#define FUNCTION(n, g, v)                                                    \
> +	{                                                                    \
> +		.pinfunction = PINCTRL_PINFUNCTION((n), (g), ARRAY_SIZE(g)), \
> +		.muxval = v,                                                 \
> +	}

It seems you have used SPACEs before \, can you move to TABs?

...

> +static int tps6594_gpio_regmap_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> +				     unsigned int base, unsigned int offset,
> +				     unsigned int *reg, unsigned int *mask)
> +{
> +	unsigned int line = offset % 8;
> +	unsigned int stride = offset / 8;
> +
> +	switch (base) {
> +	case TPS6594_REG_GPIO1_CONF:
> +		*reg = TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(offset);
> +		*mask = TPS6594_BIT_GPIO_DIR;
> +		break;
> +	case TPS6594_REG_GPIO_IN_1:
> +	case TPS6594_REG_GPIO_OUT_1:
> +		*reg = base + stride;
> +		*mask = BIT(line);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

> +	return 0;

You can return directly instead of breaking.

> +}

> +	pinctrl->pins = tps6594_pins;
> +	pinctrl->pctl_dev =
> +		devm_pinctrl_register(&pdev->dev, pctrl_desc, pinctrl);

With

	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;

the above becomes a single line. This may help other similar uses.

> +	if (IS_ERR(pinctrl->pctl_dev)) {
> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(pinctrl->pctl_dev),
> +				     "Couldn't register pinctrl driver\n");
> +	}

Also the {} can be dropped.

...

> +	pinctrl->gpio_regmap = devm_gpio_regmap_register(&pdev->dev, &config);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pinctrl->gpio_regmap)) {
> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(pinctrl->gpio_regmap),
> +				     "Couldn't register gpio_regmap driver\n");
> +	}

Ditto.

...

> +static struct platform_driver tps6594_pinctrl_driver = {
> +	.driver = { .name = "tps6594-pinctrl" },

Can you use more standard way of style here, i.e.

	.driver = {
		.name = "tps6594-pinctrl",
	},

In case someone is going to add something there in the future it will become
just as cleaner as possible.

> +	.probe = tps6594_pinctrl_probe,
> +};
> +
> +module_platform_driver(tps6594_pinctrl_driver);

Move the above blank line here.

> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:tps6594-pinctrl");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Esteban Blanc <eblanc@...libre.com>");

...

> +// Used to compute register address of GPIO1_CONF to GPIO11_CONF

This is good.

> -#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)		(0x31 + (gpio_inst))
> +#define TPS6594_REG_GPIOX_CONF(gpio_inst)	(0x31 + (gpio_inst))

But why this?!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko