linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] gpio: adp5585: Add Analog Devices ADP5585 support

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: <20240528202350.GA17310@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 23:23:50 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
	Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] gpio: adp5585: Add Analog Devices ADP5585 support

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:22:18PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:20:45PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> > 
> > Thank you for the patch.

I meant for the review. It's getting late.

> > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 10:36:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Tue, May 28, 2024 at 10:03:13PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart kirjoitti:
> > > > From: Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>
> > > > 
> > > > The ADP5585 is a 10/11 input/output port expander with a built in keypad
> > > > matrix decoder, programmable logic, reset generator, and PWM generator.
> > > > This driver supports the GPIO function using the platform device
> > > > registered by the core MFD driver.
> > > > 
> > > > The driver is derived from an initial implementation from NXP, available
> > > > in commit 451f61b46b76 ("MLK-25917-2 gpio: adp5585-gpio: add
> > > > adp5585-gpio support") in their BSP kernel tree. It has been extensively
> > > > rewritten.
> > > 
> > > Why is this not using gpio-regmap?
> 
> I forgot to answer this:
> 
> I don't think it's a good match for the hardware.
> 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/adp5585.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > > 
> > > + types.h
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > +	bit = off * 2 + (off > 5 ? 4 : 0);
> > > 
> > > Right, but can you use >= 6 here which immediately follows to the next
> > > question, i.e. why not use bank in this conditional?
> > 
> > The ADP5585_BANK() macro is meant to be used with ADP5585_BIT(), for a
> > set of registers with the same layout. Here the layout is different, the
> > registers contain multi-bit fields. I can't use ADP5585_BIT(), so I'd
> > rather not use ADP5585_BANK() either. I have decided to use > 5 instead
> > of >= 6 to match the R5 field name in the comment above:
> > 
> >         /*
> >          * The bias configuration fields are 2 bits wide and laid down in
> >          * consecutive registers ADP5585_RPULL_CONFIG_*, with a hole of 4 bits
> >          * after R5.
> >          */
> > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > +	struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > > 
> > > (see below)
> > > 
> > > > +	struct adp5585_gpio_dev *adp5585_gpio;
> > > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > 
> > > 	struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> > 
> > I prefer keeping the current ordering, with long lines first, I think
> > that's more readable.
> > 
> > > > +	struct gpio_chip *gc;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, adp5585_gpio);
> > > 
> > > Any use of driver data?
> > 
> > In v1, not v2. I'll drop it.
> > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > +	device_set_of_node_from_dev(dev, dev->parent);
> > > 
> > > Why not device_set_node()?
> > 
> > Because device_set_of_node_from_dev() is meant for this exact use case,
> > where the same node is used for multiple devices. It also puts any
> > previous dev->of_node, ensuring proper refcounting when devices are
> > unbound and rebound, without being deleted.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Laurent Pinchart
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Laurent Pinchart

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart