linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] pinctrl: intel: Add a generic Intel pin control platform driver

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: <20231113125334.GQ17433@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:53:34 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] pinctrl: intel: Add a generic Intel pin control
 platform driver

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 02:12:48PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 07:57:38AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 04:10:33PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +config PINCTRL_INTEL_PLATFORM
> > > +	tristate "Intel pinctrl and GPIO platform driver"
> > > +	depends on ACPI
> > > +	select PINCTRL_INTEL
> > > +	help
> > > +	  This pinctrl driver provides an interface that allows configuring
> > > +	  of Intel PCH pins and using them as GPIOs.
> > 
> > Add here some description that explains why this needs to be enabled,
> > for example for Lunar Lake. Now it is all too generic for distro folks
> > to understand if this is needed or not.
> 
> OK!
> 
> ...
> 
> > > + * Copyright (C) 2021-2023, Intel Corporation
> > 
> > That's 2023
> 
> As-is it is still valid and reflects the history.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	ngpps = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
> > > +	if (ngpps == 0)
> > 
> > if (!nggps)
> 
> 0 is a plain number here (as count) and explicit comparison makes sense.
> But I'm okay with another form.
> 
> 
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +	ncommunities = 1,
> > 
> > Why this is 1? Can't we have more communities?
> 
> As for now (version 1.0 of the specification) it's assumed that it's one
> community per device node in the ACPI, so I would leave this as is (we have
> also drivers with single community per device node, hence this is kinda
> pattern. Should I add a comment?
> 

Yes, I think it warrants a comment.

> ...
> 
> > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > +	struct intel_pinctrl_soc_data *data;
> > 
> > 
> > Change the ordering of the above:
> > 
> > 	struct intel_pinctrl_soc_data *data;
> > 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> 
> Sure.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > +static const struct acpi_device_id intel_platform_pinctrl_acpi_match[] = {
> > > +	{ }
> > 
> > And add the _CID here in this patch as I commented in the last patch.
> 
> OK! I'll squash the next patch into this one.
> 
> > > +};
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>