linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC regulators

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,  7 Mar 2024 14:47:34 +0530
From: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@...s.com>
To: eblanc@...libre.com
Cc: arnd@...db.de,
	bhargav.r@...s.com,
	broonie@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	jpanis@...libre.com,
	kristo@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
	lee@...nel.org,
	lgirdwood@...il.com,
	linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	m.nirmaladevi@...s.com,
	nm@...com,
	robh+dt@...nel.org,
	vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC regulators

Hello,

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:42:50 +0100, Esteban Blanc wrote:
> On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 10:36 AM CET, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> > From: Nirmala Devi Mal Nadar <m.nirmaladevi@...s.com>
> 
> > @@ -122,6 +131,27 @@ static const struct linear_range ldos_4_ranges[] = {
> >  	REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1200000, 0x20, 0x74, 25000),
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* Voltage range for TPS65224 Bucks and LDOs */
> > +static const struct linear_range tps65224_bucks_1_ranges[] = {
> 
> You prefixed your arrays with `tps65224` and that makes sense. However
> you should also prefix the old ones with `tps6594` then.
> This applies to the whole driver.
> 

Thnaks for the feedback! We will work on it.

> > @@ -374,11 +518,17 @@ static int tps6594_request_reg_irqs(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >  {
> >  	struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type *irq_type;
> >  	struct tps6594 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > -	int j;
> > +	size_t j;
> >  	int irq;
> >  	int error;
> > +	size_t interrupt_cnt;
> >  
> > -	for (j = 0; j < REGS_INT_NB; j++) {
> > +	/* Number of interrupts supported by each voltage source */
> > +	interrupt_cnt = (tps->chip_id == TPS6594) ?
> > +			 ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_buck1_irq_types) :
> > +			 ARRAY_SIZE(tps65224_buck1_irq_types);
> 
> The comment is not adding anything, the name is clear and ARRAY_SIZE is
> quite explicit.
> 

Sure, will remove it.

> > +		for (i = 0; i < LDO_NB; i++) {
> > +			if (ldo_configured[i] == 1)
> > +				continue;
> >  
> > -			error = tps6594_request_reg_irqs(pdev, rdev, irq_data,
> > -							 tps6594_ldos_irq_types[i],
> > -							 &irq_idx);
> > -			if (error)
> > -				return error;
> > +		struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type **ldos_irq_types = (tps->chip_id == TPS65224) ?
> > +								       tps65224_ldos_irq_types :
> > +								       tps6594_ldos_irq_types;
> > +
> > +		const struct regulator_desc *ldo_regs = (tps->chip_id == TPS65224) ?
> > +							 tps65224_ldo_regs :
> > +							 tps6594_ldo_regs;
> > +
> > +		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &ldo_regs[i], &config);
> > +		if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> > +			return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
> > +					     "failed to register %s regulator\n", pdev->name);
> > +
> > +		error = tps6594_request_reg_irqs(pdev, rdev, irq_data, ldos_irq_types[i], &irq_idx);
> > +		if (error)
> > +			return error;
> 
> There is an indentation missing on the content of the `for` loop.
> 

Thanks for pointing it out.
It will be fixed in the next version.

> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> Esteban "Skallwar" Blanc
> BayLibre

Regards,
Bhargav