linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/5] mfd: add driver for Marvell 88PM886 PMIC

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: <bd4e96b9-1026-469b-9884-073cde1f39dc@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:00:24 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	Duje Mihanović <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>,
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/5] mfd: add driver for Marvell 88PM886 PMIC

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 07:16:43PM +0100, Karel Balej wrote:
> Mark Brown, 2024-03-21T17:48:28+00:00:

> > > They do according to the downstream driver which is my only reference.
> > > In fact, there the driver defines the configs separately for each regmap
> > > but with the same values.

> > This is a downstream driver - are you sure it's got the best code
> > quality?

> No, that is why I have rewritten it and tried to improve on this. But
> like I said, it is my only reference. Is there some other way to verify
> this value (besides perhaps the datasheet)?

The maximum register is whatever the maximum register we know about for
the device is, the datasheet is generally a good reference there.

> > I'm not seeing any references to registers with numbers as high as the
> > maximum register that's there in your driver for example.

> Indeed, I have performed the same check with the same findings. But that
> doesn't necessarily mean that the maximum should be lower, no?

> Do you have some specific modifications of my code in mind regarding
> this?

I would expect that if you have two separate register maps they would
have separate configurations that describe the corresponding physical
register maps, as far as I can tell this driver is just making up a
maximum register number.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)