| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpr--XZnFJX96etagAa0uT0yNBcgZTfFDuu8gH2C5sgoCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:41:20 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, quic_collinsd@...cinc.com,
quic_subbaram@...cinc.com, quic_kamalw@...cinc.com,
jestar@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Input: pm8xxx-vib - Add support for more PMICs
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 09:58, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/18/2023 2:44 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 09:27, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Add support for vibrator module inside PMI632, PM7250B, PM7325B.
> >> It is very similar to vibrator inside PM8xxx but just the drive
> >> amplitude is controlled through 2 bytes registers.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c b/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
> >> index 04cb87efd799..213fdfd47c7f 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
> >> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ struct pm8xxx_regs {
> >> unsigned int drv_addr;
> >> unsigned int drv_mask;
> >> unsigned int drv_shift;
> >> + unsigned int drv_addr2;
> >> + unsigned int drv_mask2;
> >> + unsigned int drv_shift2;
> >> unsigned int drv_en_manual_mask;
> >> };
> >>
> >> @@ -44,6 +47,42 @@ static struct pm8xxx_regs pm8916_regs = {
> >> .drv_en_manual_mask = 0,
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static struct pm8xxx_regs pmi632_regs = {
> >> + .enable_addr = 0x5746,
> >> + .enable_mask = BIT(7),
> >> + .drv_addr = 0x5740,
> >> + .drv_mask = 0xff,
> >> + .drv_shift = 0,
> >> + .drv_addr2 = 0x5741,
> >> + .drv_mask2 = 0x0f,
> >> + .drv_shift2 = 8,
> >
> > I see that you are just expanding what was done for SSBI PMICs and
> > later expanded to support pm8916. However it might be better to drop
> > the hardcoded .drv_addr (and drv_addr2) and read address from DT
> > instead.
> >
>
> Right, this is the simplest change without updating the code logic too
> much. If we decided to read .drv_addr and .drv_add2 from DT, we will
> have to read .enable_addr along with all other mask/shift for each
> register address from DT as well because they are not consistent from
> target to target. I don't know how would you suggest to add the DT
> properties for all of them, but if we end up to add a property for each
> of them, it won't be cleaner than hard-coding them.
No, we (correctly) have device compatibles for that. The issue with
hardcoding register addresses is that it adds extra issues here.
If I understand correctly, we have several 'generation':
- SSBI PMIC, shifted 5-bit mask, en_manual_mask, no enable_register.
- older SPMI PMIC, 5 bit drv_mask, 0 en_manual_mask, enable register at +6
- new SPMI PMIC, 12 bit drv_mask, 0 en_manual_mask, enable register at +6
For the last generation you are adding three independent entries,
while the block looks the same. If you remove drv_addr (and get it
from reg property), it would allow us to keep only the functional data
in struct pm8xxxx_regs (masks / shifts).
>
>
> >> + .drv_en_manual_mask = 0,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static struct pm8xxx_regs pm7250b_regs = {
> >> + .enable_addr = 0x5346,
> >> + .enable_mask = BIT(7),
> >> + .drv_addr = 0x5340,
> >> + .drv_mask = 0xff,
> >> + .drv_shift = 0,
> >> + .drv_addr2 = 0x5341,
> >> + .drv_mask2 = 0x0f,
> >> + .drv_shift2 = 8,
> >> + .drv_en_manual_mask = 0,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static struct pm8xxx_regs pm7325b_regs = {
> >> + .enable_addr = 0xdf46,
> >> + .enable_mask = BIT(7),
> >> + .drv_addr = 0xdf40,
> >> + .drv_mask = 0xff,
> >> + .drv_shift = 0,
> >> + .drv_addr2 = 0xdf41,
> >> + .drv_mask2 = 0x0f,
> >> + .drv_shift2 = 8,
> >> + .drv_en_manual_mask = 0,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> /**
> >> * struct pm8xxx_vib - structure to hold vibrator data
> >> * @vib_input_dev: input device supporting force feedback
> >> @@ -87,6 +126,12 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_set(struct pm8xxx_vib *vib, bool on)
> >> return rc;
> >>
> >> vib->reg_vib_drv = val;
> >> + if (regs->drv_addr2 != 0 && on) {
> >> + val = (vib->level << regs->drv_shift2) & regs->drv_mask2;
> >> + rc = regmap_write(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr2, val);
> >> + if (rc < 0)
> >> + return rc;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> if (regs->enable_mask)
> >> rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, regs->enable_addr,
> >> @@ -242,6 +287,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id pm8xxx_vib_id_table[] = {
> >> { .compatible = "qcom,pm8058-vib", .data = &pm8058_regs },
> >> { .compatible = "qcom,pm8921-vib", .data = &pm8058_regs },
> >> { .compatible = "qcom,pm8916-vib", .data = &pm8916_regs },
> >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi632-vib", .data = &pmi632_regs },
> >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm7250b-vib", .data = &pm7250b_regs },
> >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm7325b-vib", .data = &pm7325b_regs },
> >> { }
> >> };
> >> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pm8xxx_vib_id_table);
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >>
> >
> >
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists