Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:45:12 +0100
From: Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@free.fr>
To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/23] drm/i2c: tda998x: don't read write-only
 registers
Message-ID: <20140202184512.7fa2e3cf@armhf>
In-Reply-To: <20140202162309.GF26684@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <cover.1390986082.git.moinejf@free.fr>
	<5269e596e16dfe40253dce38ceb0dc4a617384c1.1390986083.git.moinejf@free.fr>
	<20140202162309.GF26684@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 2 Feb 2014 16:23:09 +0000
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 06:14:42PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:  
> > This patch takes care of the write-only registers of the tda998x.
> > 
> > The registers SOFTRESET, TBG_CNTRL_0 and TBG_CNTRL_1 have all bits
> > cleared after reset, so, they may be fully re-written.
> > 
> > The register MAT_CONTRL is set to
> > 	MAT_CONTRL_MAT_BP | MAT_CONTRL_MAT_SC(1)
> > after reset, so, it may be fully set again to this value.  
> 
> I said in v3 of this patch, which seems to remain unaddressed:
>   
> >       /* must be last register set: */
> > -     reg_clear(priv, REG_TBG_CNTRL_0, TBG_CNTRL_0_SYNC_ONCE);
> > +     reg_write(priv, REG_TBG_CNTRL_0, 0);  
> 
> Register changes which have a potential effect shouldn't be part of a
> patch which is really only trying to avoid reading from write only
> registers.
> 
> This could be a potential functional change - and it's probably one
> which Rob Clark should at least be made aware of.  As I commented last
> time, when you're changing register values in an otherwise innocuous
> patch, you should comment about them in the patch description.  

According to the tda9983b documentation, the register TBG_CNTRL_0 is
set to 0 at reset time. I think that it is the same for all the tda998x
family. In the other hand, this register is supposed to be write only,
so reading it may return any value, and the reg_clear() function may
set any other bits. Then, clearing one bit is less secure than clearing
the full register.

-- 
Ken ar c'hentañ	|	      ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef		|		http://moinejf.free.fr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/