lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] regulator: tps65910: update type for regmap
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:03 -0700, Rhyland Klein wrote:
    > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 02:25 -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
    > > * PGP Signed by an unknown key
    > >
    > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:00:26PM -0700, Rhyland Klein wrote:
    > > > When accessing the regmap via the read/write functions, we need to use a
    > > > unsigned int * instead of a u8 * otherwise corruption will occur.
    > > >
    > > > Signed-off-by: Rhyland Klein <rklein@nvidia.com>
    > >
    > > > static inline int tps65910_read(struct tps65910_reg *pmic, u8 reg)
    > > > {
    > > > - u8 val;
    > > > + unsigned int val;
    > > > int err;
    > > >
    > > > err = pmic->mfd->read(pmic->mfd, reg, 1, &val);
    > >
    > > Ugh, this interface is just broken all round - there's absolutely no
    > > type safety here and all users of these functions will be broken (a
    > > similar issue applies on write). It's much better to fix this for 3.4
    > > by converting the core code to use regmap_raw_ functions which take
    > > native formatted data for the device like the function driver API
    > > actually expects.
    >
    > Which interface are you saying is broken? The regmap interface or the
    > one internal to the tps65910 code?
    >
    > >
    > > Looking at the MFD code the fix for 3.5 should at the very least involve
    > > making the functions take typed pointers, though given the way they're
    > > implemented right now with direct references in the subdevices I'd also
    > > consider just having the subdevices uses regmap directly as the wrappers
    > > are just adding an opportunity for error (the bit operations could be
    > > converted into static inlines in the header too).
    > >
    >
    > So to be clear... Your recommendation is to change the tps65910 code to
    > remove the common read/write callbacks and to use regmap directly in
    > each component, and then when using regmap, do use the regmap raw
    > functions instead of the bulkread/write?

    Looking at the code, I would think it makes more sense use regmap_read
    which enforces types since the tps65910 code only ever seems to use
    regmap to access a single register at a time. Do you agree?

    -rhyland
    ---
    nvpublic




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-18 22:37    [W:0.023 / U:0.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site