linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032

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: <dec51c56-9169-d0f0-bdcd-e99790a7d86a@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:24:05 +0200
From:   Marion & Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, lee@...nel.org, bcousson@...libre.com,
        tony@...mide.com, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032



Le 12/09/2023 à 19:15, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
> Le 12/09/2023 à 00:13, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
>> The TWL6032 has some clock outputs which are controlled like
>> fixed-voltage regulators, in some drivers for these chips
>> found in the wild, just the regulator api is abused for controlling
>> them, so simply use something similar to the regulator functions.
>> Due to a lack of hardware available for testing, leave out the
>> TWL6030-specific part of those functions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
>> ---
>>   drivers/clk/Kconfig   |   9 ++
>>   drivers/clk/Makefile  |   1 +
>>   drivers/clk/clk-twl.c | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 207 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>> +static int twl_clks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +    struct clk_hw_onecell_data *clk_data;
>> +    const struct twl_clks_data *hw_data;
>> +
>> +    struct twl_clock_info *cinfo;
>> +    int ret;
>> +    int i;
>> +    int count;
>> +
>> +    hw_data = twl6032_clks;
>> +    for (count = 0; hw_data[count].init.name; count++)
>> +        ;
> 
> Nit: does removing the /* sentinel */ and using 
> ARRAY_SIZE(twl_clks_data) would make sense and be simpler?
> 
> CJ
> 
>> +
>> +    clk_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>> +                struct_size(clk_data, hws, count),
>> +                GFP_KERNEL);
>> +    if (!clk_data)
>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +    clk_data->num = count;
>> +    cinfo = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, count, sizeof(*cinfo), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +    if (!cinfo)
>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>> +        cinfo[i].base = hw_data[i].base;
>> +        cinfo[i].dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +        cinfo[i].hw.init = &hw_data[i].init;
>> +        ret = devm_clk_hw_register(&pdev->dev, &cinfo[i].hw);
>> +        if (ret) {
>> +            dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Fail to register clock %s, %d\n",
>> +                hw_data[i].init.name, ret);
>> +            return ret;
>> +        }
>> +        clk_data->hws[i] = &cinfo[i].hw;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    ret = devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(&pdev->dev,
>> +                      of_clk_hw_onecell_get, clk_data);
>> +    if (ret < 0)
>> +        dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Fail to add clock driver, %d\n", ret);
>> +
>> +    return ret;
> 
> Nit: should there be a V4, some prefer return 0 to be more explicit.

Oops, no, or a "return ret;" should be added as well a few lines above
(it would more future proof, so)

> 
>> +}
> 
> ...
> 
>