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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250728145259.753b3999@jic23-huawei>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:52:59 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Akshay Jindal <akshayaj.lkd@...il.com>
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 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.


> +
>  #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.

> +	regmap_reg_range(LTR390_INT_CFG, LTR390_INT_PST),
> +	regmap_reg_range(LTR390_THRESH_UP_BYTE(0), LTR390_THRESH_LOW_BYTE(2)),
> +};

Thanks,

Jonathan