linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] mfd: mt6397: Split MediaTek MT6366 PMIC out of MT6358

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]

Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:01:32 +0200
From:   AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] mfd: mt6397: Split MediaTek MT6366 PMIC out of MT6358

Il 03/08/23 09:42, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
> The MT6366 PMIC is mostly, but not fully, compatible with MT6358. It has
> a different set of regulators. Specifically, it lacks the camera related
> VCAM* LDOs, but has additional VM18, VMDDR, and VSRAM_CORE LDOs.
> 
> Add a separate compatible for the MT6366 PMIC. The regulator cell for
> this new entry uses a new compatible string matching MT6366.
> 
> Fixes: c47383f84909 ("mfd: Add support for the MediaTek MT6366 PMIC")
> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>

I agree in that the LDOs are a bit different, but that's handled by the
mt6358-regulator driver regardless of the actual devicetree compatible,
as that's selected through a chip_id check.

Finally, looking at the driver implementation itself, the addition of a
specific mt6366 compatible here seems redundant, because the actual HW is
  - Handled by drivers, but
  - Described by bindings

Any other opinions on this?

Regards,
Angelo

> ---
>   drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c
> index f6c1f80f94a4..3f8dfe60a59b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c
> @@ -206,6 +206,26 @@ static const struct mfd_cell mt6359_devs[] = {
>   	},
>   };
>   
> +static const struct mfd_cell mt6366_devs[] = {
> +	{
> +		.name = "mt6358-regulator",
> +		.of_compatible = "mediatek,mt6366-regulator"
> +	}, {
> +		.name = "mt6358-rtc",
> +		.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_rtc_resources),
> +		.resources = mt6358_rtc_resources,
> +		.of_compatible = "mediatek,mt6358-rtc",
> +	}, {
> +		.name = "mt6358-sound",
> +		.of_compatible = "mediatek,mt6358-sound"
> +	}, {
> +		.name = "mt6358-keys",
> +		.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_keys_resources),
> +		.resources = mt6358_keys_resources,
> +		.of_compatible = "mediatek,mt6358-keys"
> +	},
> +};
> +
>   static const struct mfd_cell mt6397_devs[] = {
>   	{
>   		.name = "mt6397-rtc",
> @@ -280,6 +300,14 @@ static const struct chip_data mt6359_core = {
>   	.irq_init = mt6358_irq_init,
>   };
>   
> +static const struct chip_data mt6366_core = {
> +	.cid_addr = MT6358_SWCID,
> +	.cid_shift = 8,
> +	.cells = mt6366_devs,
> +	.cell_size = ARRAY_SIZE(mt6366_devs),
> +	.irq_init = mt6358_irq_init,
> +};
> +
>   static const struct chip_data mt6397_core = {
>   	.cid_addr = MT6397_CID,
>   	.cid_shift = 0,
> @@ -358,6 +386,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id mt6397_of_match[] = {
>   	}, {
>   		.compatible = "mediatek,mt6359",
>   		.data = &mt6359_core,
> +	}, {
> +		.compatible = "mediatek,mt6366",
> +		.data = &mt6366_core,
>   	}, {
>   		.compatible = "mediatek,mt6397",
>   		.data = &mt6397_core,