netdev - Re: [RFC v8 net-next 08/16] mfd: ocelot: add support for the vsc7512 chip via spi

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: <YnzYM1kOJ9hcaaQ6@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 10:49:39 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v8 net-next 08/16] mfd: ocelot: add support for the vsc7512
 chip via spi

On Tue, 10 May 2022, Colin Foster wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:32:26PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 May 2022, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 04:49:22PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > > > > +struct regmap *ocelot_init_regmap_from_resource(struct device *child,
> > > > > > +						const struct resource *res)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	struct device *dev = child->parent;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	return ocelot_spi_devm_init_regmap(dev, child, res);
> > > > > 
> > > > > So much for being bus-agnostic :-/
> > > > > Maybe get the struct ocelot_ddata and call ocelot_spi_devm_init_regmap()
> > > > > via a function pointer which is populated by ocelot-spi.c? If you do
> > > > > that don't forget to clean up drivers/mfd/ocelot.h of SPI specific stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > That was my initial design. "core" was calling into "spi" exclusively
> > > > via function pointers.
> > > > 
> > > > The request was "Please find a clearer way to do this without function
> > > > pointers"
> > > > 
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Ydwju35sN9QJqJ%2FP@google.com/
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I'm not sure what Lee was looking for, either. In any case I agree
> > > with the comment that you aren't configuring a bus. In this context it
> > > seems more appropriate to call this function pointer "init_regmap", with
> > > different implementations per transport.
> > 
> > FWIW, I'm still against using function pointers for this.
> > 
> > What about making ocelot_init_regmap_from_resource() an inline
> > function and pushing it into one of the header files?
> > 
> > [As an aside, you don't need to pass both dev (parent) and child]
> 
> I see your point. This wasn't always the case, since ocelot-core prior
> to v8 would call ocelot_spi_devm_init_regmap. Since this was changed,
> the "dev, dev" part can all be handled internally. That's nice.
> 
> > 
> > In there you could simply do:
> > 
> > inline struct regmap *ocelot_init_regmap_from_resource(struct device *dev,
> > 						       const struct resource *res)
> > {
> > 	if (dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent)->spi)
> > 		return ocelot_spi_devm_init_regmap(dev, res);
> > 
> > 	return NULL;
> > }
> 
> If I do this, won't I have to declare ocelot_spi_devm_init_regmap in a
> larger scope (include/soc/mscc/ocelot.h)? I like the idea of keeping it
> more hidden inside drivers/mfd/ocelot.h, assuming I can't keep it
> enclosed in drivers/mfd/ocelot-spi.c entirely.

Yes, it will have the same scope as ocelot_init_regmap_from_resource().

Have you considered include/linux/mfd?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog