netdev - Re: [PATCH v12 1/7] mfd: Add core driver for Nuvoton NCT6694

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: <20250619115345.GL587864@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:53:45 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Ming Yu <a0282524688@...il.com>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, andi.shyti@...nel.org,
	mkl@...gutronix.de, mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
	linux@...ck-us.net, jdelvare@...e.com,
	alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Ming Yu <tmyu0@...oton.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/7] mfd: Add core driver for Nuvoton NCT6694

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:

> Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org> 於 2025年6月13日 週五 下午9:11寫道：
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:
> >
> > > Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org> 於 2025年6月12日 週四 下午11:23寫道：
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Lee,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for reviewing,
> > > > >
> > > > > Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org> 於 2025年6月12日 週四 下午10:00寫道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > +static const struct mfd_cell nct6694_devs[] = {
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 6),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 7),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 8),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 9),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 10),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 11),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 12),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 13),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 14),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 15),
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
> > > > > > > +     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why have we gone back to this silly numbering scheme?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What happened to using IDA in the child driver?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In a previous version, I tried to maintain a static IDA in each
> > > > > sub-driver. However, I didn’t consider the case where multiple NCT6694
> > > > > devices are bound to the same driver — in that case, the IDs are not
> > > > > fixed and become unusable for my purpose.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I understand.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As far as I know, if I maintain the IDA in the sub-drivers and use
> > > multiple MFD_CELL_NAME("nct6694-gpio") entries in the MFD, the first
> > > NCT6694 device bound to the GPIO driver will receive IDs 0~15.
> > > However, when a second NCT6694 device is connected to the system, it
> > > will receive IDs 16~31.
> > > Because of this behavior, I switched back to using platform_device->id.
> >
> > Each of the devices will probe once.
> >
> > The first one will be given 0, the second will be given 1, etc.
> >
> > Why would you give multiple IDs to a single device bound to a driver?
> >
> 
> The device exposes multiple peripherals — 16 GPIO controllers, 6 I2C
> adapters, 2 CAN FD controllers, and 2 watchdog timers. Each peripheral
> is independently addressable, has its own register region, and can
> operate in isolation. The IDs are used to distinguish between these
> instances.
> For example, the GPIO driver will be probed 16 times, allocating 16
> separate gpio_chip instances to control 8 GPIO lines each.
> 
> If another device binds to this driver, it is expected to expose
> peripherals with the same structure and behavior.

I still don't see why having a per-device IDA wouldn't render each
probed device with its own ID.  Just as you have above.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]