linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mfd: simple-mfd-i2c: add SpacemiT P1 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250701110713.GL10134@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 12:07:13 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Alex Elder <elder@...cstar.com>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
	robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	mat.jonczyk@...pl, dlan@...too.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
	palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, alex@...ti.fr,
	troymitchell988@...il.com, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	spacemit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mfd: simple-mfd-i2c: add SpacemiT P1 support

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025, Alex Elder wrote:

> On 6/27/25 7:51 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > @@ -93,12 +93,30 @@ static const struct simple_mfd_data maxim_mon_max77705 = {
> > >   	.mfd_cell_size = ARRAY_SIZE(max77705_sensor_cells),
> > >   };
> > > +static const struct regmap_config spacemit_p1_regmap_config = {
> > > +	.reg_bits = 8,
> > > +	.val_bits = 8,
> > > +	.max_register = 0xaa,
> > > +};
> > Suggest making this more widely useful by adding the 'max_register'
> > attribute to 'struct simple_mfd' and conditionally overriding
> > regmap_config_8r_8v's value during probe.
> 
> So you're suggesting I make a general improvement to
> "simple-mfd-i2c.c", because everybody else just uses
> the generic fallback regmap config?

Yes, exactly that.

> (I'm asking because at first I didn't understand your
> statement, and the "more widely useful" comment).
> 
> I would be happy to do this, and it's not that hard.
> Can I do it as a follow-on patch though?  It's adding
> scope (again), beyond what I anticipated and honestly
> I'm ready to be done with this...

Good job you're not working on a complex addition then.  =;-)

> Anyway, if you say "no" I'll send another version of
> this series today.

A follow-up would be good, thanks.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]