linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] pwm: 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: <ZmcWi08u6-u4MyKu@surfacebook.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:06:51 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.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>,
	Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] pwm: adp5585: Add Analog Devices ADP5585 support

Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 05:16:33PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart kirjoitti:
> From: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....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 PWM function using the platform device
> registered by the core MFD driver.
> 
> The driver is derived from an initial implementation from NXP, available
> in commit 113113742208 ("MLK-25922-1 pwm: adp5585: add adp5585 PWM
> support") in their BSP kernel tree. It has been extensively rewritten.

...

> +#define ADP5585_PWM_OSC_FREQ_HZ		1000000U

(1 * HZ_PER_MHZ) ?

Variant to use MEGA. Or even #define MHz in units.h if you wish.
Putting a few 0:s in a row is error prone.

...

> +	ret = regmap_write(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_LOW,
> +			   off & 0xff);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +	ret = regmap_write(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_HIGH,
> +			   (off >> 8) & 0xff);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;

This is regular I²C regmap, why do you avoid using regmap bulk APIs?

> +	ret = regmap_write(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_ONT_LOW,
> +			   on & 0xff);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +	ret = regmap_write(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_ONT_HIGH,
> +			   (on >> 8) & 0xff);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;

Ditto.

...

> +static int pwm_adp5585_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> +				 struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +				 struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> +	struct regmap *regmap = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
> +	unsigned int on, off;
> +	unsigned int val;
> +
> +	regmap_read(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_LOW, &off);
> +	regmap_read(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_OFFT_HIGH, &val);
> +	off |= val << 8;

Ditto.

> +	regmap_read(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_ONT_LOW, &on);
> +	regmap_read(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_ONT_HIGH, &val);
> +	on |= val << 8;

Ditto.

> +	state->duty_cycle = on * (NSEC_PER_SEC / ADP5585_PWM_OSC_FREQ_HZ);
> +	state->period = (on + off) * (NSEC_PER_SEC / ADP5585_PWM_OSC_FREQ_HZ);
> +
> +	state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> +
> +	regmap_read(regmap, ADP5585_PWM_CFG, &val);
> +	state->enabled = !!(val & ADP5585_PWM_EN);
> +
> +	return 0;

Besides that, how do you guarantee that no IO may happen in between of those
calls? Probably you want a driver explicit lock? In that case, would you still
want to have a regmap internal lock?

> +}

...

> +static int adp5585_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	struct adp5585_dev *adp5585 = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> +	struct pwm_chip *chip;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	chip = devm_pwmchip_alloc(dev, ADP5585_PWM_CHAN_NUM, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(chip))
> +		return PTR_ERR(chip);

> +	device_set_of_node_from_dev(dev, dev->parent);

Still unclear to me why only few drivers use this.

> +	pwmchip_set_drvdata(chip, adp5585->regmap);
> +	chip->ops = &adp5585_pwm_ops;
> +
> +	ret = devm_pwmchip_add(dev, chip);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to add PWM chip\n");
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

...

> +static const struct platform_device_id adp5585_pwm_id_table[] = {
> +	{ "adp5585-pwm" },
> +	{ /* Sentinel */ },

Drop comma. Otherwise it's not a sentinel strictly speaking.

> +};

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko