linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] iio: light: ltr390: Add debugfs register access 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: <CAE3SzaQwU47-qijxwex+5WFmRXjqodqPMZ45_5UU3z-7i_K5ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 21:49:03 +0530
From: Akshay Jindal <akshayaj.lkd@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: anshulusr@...il.com, dlechner@...libre.com, nuno.sa@...log.com, 
	andy@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] iio: light: ltr390: Add debugfs register access support

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 7:23 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:09:39 +0530
> Akshay Jindal <akshayaj.lkd@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Add support for debugfs_reg_access through the driver's iio_info structure
> > to enable low-level register read/write access for debugging.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akshay Jindal <akshayaj.lkd@...il.com>
>
> >  drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c b/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c
> > index ee59bbb8aa09..b1028d027e1b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/light/ltr390.c
> > @@ -38,12 +38,21 @@
> >  #define LTR390_ALS_UVS_GAIN          0x05
> >  #define LTR390_PART_ID                       0x06
> >  #define LTR390_MAIN_STATUS           0x07
> > +
> >  #define LTR390_ALS_DATA                      0x0D
> > +#define LTR390_ALS_DATA_BYTE(n)              ((LTR390_ALS_DATA) + (n))
>                                                 (LTR390_ALS_DATA + (n))
>
> etc  There is no benefit in brackets around the bit that isn't a parameter
> of the macro that I can see.

Fixed.
>
> > +
> >  #define LTR390_UVS_DATA                      0x10
> > +#define LTR390_UVS_DATA_BYTE(n)              ((LTR390_UVS_DATA) + (n))
> > +
> >  #define LTR390_INT_CFG                       0x19
> >  #define LTR390_INT_PST                       0x1A
> > +
> >  #define LTR390_THRESH_UP             0x21
> > +#define LTR390_THRESH_UP_BYTE(n)     ((LTR390_THRESH_UP) + (n))
> > +
> >  #define LTR390_THRESH_LOW            0x24
> > +#define LTR390_THRESH_LOW_BYTE(n)    ((LTR390_THRESH_LOW) + (n))
> >
> >  #define LTR390_PART_NUMBER_ID                0xb
> >  #define LTR390_ALS_UVS_GAIN_MASK     GENMASK(2, 0)
> > @@ -98,11 +107,40 @@ struct ltr390_data {
> >       int int_time_us;
> >  };
> >
> > +static const struct regmap_range ltr390_readable_reg_ranges[] = {
> > +     regmap_reg_range(LTR390_MAIN_CTRL, LTR390_MAIN_CTRL),
> > +     regmap_reg_range(LTR390_ALS_UVS_MEAS_RATE, LTR390_MAIN_STATUS),
> > +     regmap_reg_range(LTR390_ALS_DATA_BYTE(0), LTR390_ALS_DATA_BYTE(2)),
> > +     regmap_reg_range(LTR390_UVS_DATA_BYTE(0), LTR390_UVS_DATA_BYTE(2)),
>
> If we are doing maximum length ranges can we not combine the two above?
> Looks to be 0xd,0xe,0xf,0x10,0x11 and 0x012, so a continuous range similar
> to the thresholds below.
>
Done the changes.
> > +     regmap_reg_range(LTR390_INT_CFG, LTR390_INT_PST),
> > +     regmap_reg_range(LTR390_THRESH_UP_BYTE(0), LTR390_THRESH_LOW_BYTE(2)),
> > +};
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
Thanks for the review. Floated a v4 with the changes.

Thanks,
Akshay