linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure

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: <l57yh42pb7cfbnk5z4zo473vb5pac6t4hnpg36m3iph3og4wom@kmd35myokcgp>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 16:59:34 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Longbin Li <looong.bin@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>, Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, sophgo@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] pwm: sophgo: reorganize the code structure

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:34:49AM +0800, Longbin Li wrote:
> As the driver logic can be used in both SG2042 and SG2044, it
> will be better to reorganize the code structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> index ff4639d849ce..23a83843ba53 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sophgo-sg2042.c
> @@ -26,18 +26,6 @@
>  #include <linux/pwm.h>
>  #include <linux/reset.h>
> 
> -/*
> - * Offset RegisterName
> - * 0x0000 HLPERIOD0
> - * 0x0004 PERIOD0
> - * 0x0008 HLPERIOD1
> - * 0x000C PERIOD1
> - * 0x0010 HLPERIOD2
> - * 0x0014 PERIOD2
> - * 0x0018 HLPERIOD3
> - * 0x001C PERIOD3
> - * Four groups and every group is composed of HLPERIOD & PERIOD
> - */

This seems to be still correct? Why remove it then?

>  #define SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 0)
>  #define SG2042_PWM_PERIOD(chan) ((chan) * 8 + 4)
> 
> @@ -53,6 +41,10 @@ struct sg2042_pwm_ddata {
>  	unsigned long clk_rate_hz;
>  };
> 
> +struct sg2042_chip_data {
> +	const struct pwm_ops ops;
> +};
> +
>  /*
>   * period_ticks: PERIOD
>   * hlperiod_ticks: HLPERIOD
> @@ -66,21 +58,13 @@ static void pwm_sg2042_config(struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata, unsigned int chan,
>  	writel(hlperiod_ticks, base + SG2042_PWM_HLPERIOD(chan));
>  }
> 
> -static int pwm_sg2042_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> -			    const struct pwm_state *state)
> +static void pwm_set_dutycycle(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,

This is not a global pwm API function, so please stick to the pwm_sg2042
prefix.

> +			      const struct pwm_state *state)
>  {
>  	struct sg2042_pwm_ddata *ddata = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
>  	u32 hlperiod_ticks;
>  	u32 period_ticks;
> 
> -	if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	if (!state->enabled) {
> -		pwm_sg2042_config(ddata, pwm->hwpwm, 0, 0);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Duration of High level (duty_cycle) = HLPERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
>  	 * Duration of One Cycle (period) = PERIOD x Period_of_input_clk
> [...]
> @@ -123,13 +123,16 @@ static int pwm_sg2042_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> -static const struct pwm_ops pwm_sg2042_ops = {
> -	.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> -	.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> +static const struct sg2042_chip_data sg2042_chip_data = {
> +	.ops = {
> +		.apply = pwm_sg2042_apply,
> +		.get_state = pwm_sg2042_get_state,
> +	}
>  };
> 
>  static const struct of_device_id sg2042_pwm_ids[] = {
> -	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm" },
> +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pwm",
> +	  .data = &sg2042_chip_data },

I would have expected that checkpatch doesn't like that. At least I
don't. Please make this

	{
		.compatible = ...;
		.data = ...;
	},

>  	{ }
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sg2042_pwm_ids);

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