linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] pwm: rzg2l-gpt: Add info variable to struct rzg2l_gpt

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <lb4h7cm5jv7xngwihq3k3kgcj7a33suictdjztv5xcy75wpafd@i4rf44e5sigi>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 09:25:53 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Biju <biju.das.au@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, 
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, 
	Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>, Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai.xr@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] pwm: rzg2l-gpt: Add info variable to struct
 rzg2l_gpt_chip

Hello Biju,

thanks for your patience, now I finally come around to tackle your
series.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 03:45:06PM +0100, Biju wrote:
>  
> @@ -46,7 +59,6 @@
>  
>  #define RZG2L_GTCR_CST		BIT(0)
>  #define RZG2L_GTCR_MD		GENMASK(18, 16)
> -#define RZG2L_GTCR_TPCS		GENMASK(26, 24)

Even though this is only used once now, I wonder if it's beneficial to
keep the name to have the definitions relevant to registers all
together.
 
>  #define RZG2L_GTCR_MD_SAW_WAVE_PWM_MODE	FIELD_PREP(RZG2L_GTCR_MD, 0)
>  
> @@ -77,9 +89,14 @@
>  #define RZG2L_MAX_SCALE_FACTOR	1024
>  #define RZG2L_MAX_TICKS		((u64)U32_MAX * RZG2L_MAX_SCALE_FACTOR)
>  
> +struct rzg2l_gpt_info {
> +	u32 gtcr_tpcs_mask;

For consistency I would have called this only gtcr_tpcs without _mask.
But here I'm not entirely sure if this will be confused by the
occasional reader with the actual value. What's your thought here?

> +};
> +
>  struct rzg2l_gpt_chip {
>  	void __iomem *mmio;
>  	struct mutex lock; /* lock to protect shared channel resources */
> +	const struct rzg2l_gpt_info *info;
>  	unsigned long rate_khz;
>  	u32 period_ticks[RZG2L_MAX_HW_CHANNELS];
>  	u32 channel_request_count[RZG2L_MAX_HW_CHANNELS];

Just these two very weak suggestions. Please consider these and tell me
what you prefer. If you like to keep them as they are, that's fine for
me.

Best regards
Uwe

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