linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: allow slew rate bit in main pin config register

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1f0bf00f-07db-4017-a30b-618d90ce0457@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2023 09:45:55 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: allow slew rate bit in main
 pin config register

On 01/09/2023 14:28, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 1.09.2023 11:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Existing Qualcomm SoCs have the LPASS pin controller slew rate control
>> in separate register, however this will change with upcoming Qualcomm
>> SoCs.  The slew rate will be part of the main register for pin
>> configuration, thus second device IO address space is not needed.
>>
>> Prepare for supporting new SoCs by adding flag customizing the driver
>> behavior for slew rate.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>>  drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.h |  7 +++++++
>>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c
>> index e2df2193a802..40eb58a3a8cd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c
>> @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ static int lpi_config_set_slew_rate(struct lpi_pinctrl *pctrl,
>>  				    const struct lpi_pingroup *g,
>>  				    unsigned int group, unsigned int slew)
>>  {
>> +	void __iomem *reg;
> Aaalmost reverse-Christmas-tree!

I can fix it.

> 
>>  	unsigned long sval;
>>  	int slew_offset;
>>  
>> @@ -203,12 +204,17 @@ static int lpi_config_set_slew_rate(struct lpi_pinctrl *pctrl,
>>  	if (slew_offset == LPI_NO_SLEW)
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>> +	if (pctrl->data->flags & LPI_FLAG_SLEW_RATE_SAME_REG)
>> +		reg = pctrl->tlmm_base + LPI_TLMM_REG_OFFSET * group + LPI_GPIO_CFG_REG;
>> +	else
>> +		reg = pctrl->slew_base + LPI_SLEW_RATE_CTL_REG;
> Perhaps lpi_gpio_read/write could be used here?
> 
> I guess both ways work though

I was thinking about this, but decided not to in favor of duplicating
"tlmm_base + offset * group ....". It would not make the code easier to
read.


Best regards,
Krzysztof