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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpoCYb=3=YVBe+xYO+ccUMLzddwY-jsdT6HuFNvE5GyoPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 14:36:32 +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 Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 06:41, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2024 10:05 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Hmm, the original driver doesn't use the reg value defined in DT at all,
> Anyway, I can make the SSBI offset to 0, so the base address defined in
> the DT will be always added regardless of SSBI or SPMI vibrator. Let me
> know.

Yes, please. This follows the logic of the SPMI change too.

> Thanks
>
> >>
> >>>> +
> >>>>           /* 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