linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator

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: <CAA8EJpqa=5yaTRHuEiYynTDFy53YPFk4R3q_EV8rmsBN1iR5fA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:05:01 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
Cc: kernel@...cinc.com, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, 
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new
 SPMI vibrator

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 16:45, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/4/11 18:58, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 11:32, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> > <devnull+quic_fenglinw.quicinc.com@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
> >>
> >> Currently, vibrator control register addresses are hard coded,
> >> including the base address and offsets, it's not flexible to
> >> support new SPMI vibrator module which is usually included in
> >> different PMICs with different base address. Refactor it by using
> >> the base address defined in devicetree.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c b/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
> >> index 89f0f1c810d8..2959edca8eb9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
> >> @@ -20,26 +20,26 @@
> >>   #define MAX_FF_SPEED           0xff
> >>
> >>   struct pm8xxx_regs {
> >> -       unsigned int enable_addr;
> >> +       unsigned int enable_offset;
> >>          unsigned int enable_mask;
> >>
> >> -       unsigned int drv_addr;
> >> +       unsigned int drv_offset;
> >>          unsigned int drv_mask;
> >>          unsigned int drv_shift;
> >>          unsigned int drv_en_manual_mask;
> >>   };
> >>
> >>   static const struct pm8xxx_regs pm8058_regs = {
> >> -       .drv_addr = 0x4A,
> >> +       .drv_offset = 0x4A,
> >
> > If the DT already has reg = <0x4a> and you add drv_offset = 0x4a,
> > which register will be used by the driver?
> >
> > Also, while we are at it, please downcase all the hex numbers that you
> > are touching.
> >
> For SSBI vibrator, the "reg" value defined in DT is not used, see below.
>
>
> >>          .drv_mask = 0xf8,
> >>          .drv_shift = 3,
> >>          .drv_en_manual_mask = 0xfc,
> >>   };
> >>
> >>   static struct pm8xxx_regs pm8916_regs = {
> >> -       .enable_addr = 0xc046,
> >> +       .enable_offset = 0x46,
>
> [...]
>
> >> @@ -170,7 +173,7 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>          struct pm8xxx_vib *vib;
> >>          struct input_dev *input_dev;
> >>          int error;
> >> -       unsigned int val;
> >> +       unsigned int val, reg_base = 0;
> >>          const struct pm8xxx_regs *regs;
> >>
> >>          vib = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*vib), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> @@ -190,13 +193,24 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>
> >>          regs = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> >>
> >> +       if (regs->enable_offset != 0) {
> >> +               error = fwnode_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.fwnode, "reg", &reg_base);
> >> +               if (error < 0) {
> >> +                       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to read reg address, rc=%d\n", error);
> >> +                       return error;
> >> +               }
> >> +       }
> >> +
> >> +       vib->enable_addr = reg_base + regs->enable_offset;
> >> +       vib->drv_addr = reg_base + regs->drv_offset;
>
> The reg_base is initialized as 0 and it is assigned as the "reg" value
> defined in DT only for SPMI vibrators.

Please don't. This is counterintuitive. We have reg in DT. We should
be using it.

>
> >> +
> >>          /* operate in manual mode */
> >> -       error = regmap_read(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr, &val);
> >> +       error = regmap_read(vib->regmap, vib->drv_addr, &val);
> >>          if (error < 0)
> >>                  return error;
> >>
> >>          val &= regs->drv_en_manual_mask;
> >> -       error = regmap_write(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr, val);
> >> +       error = regmap_write(vib->regmap, vib->drv_addr, val);
> >>          if (error < 0)
> >>                  return error;
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >>
> >>
> >
> >



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry