Message-ID: <4DCC3901.9090200@fastmail.fm>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:46:09 +0100
From: Jack Stone <jwjstone@fastmail.fm>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Margarita Olaya <magi@slimlogic.co.uk>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
        sameo@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] mfd: tps65912: Add new mfd device
References: <BANLkTikWhA2OQABA1QYUrLdasbmH8yusNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikWhA2OQABA1QYUrLdasbmH8yusNg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3681
Lines: 145

Hi Margarita,

Just a few comments.

On 12/05/2011 19:42, Margarita Olaya wrote:
[snip]

> +#if defined(CONFIG_SPI_MASTER)
> +static int tps65912_spi_write(struct tps65912 *tps65912, u8 addr,
> +							int bytes, void *src)
> +{
> +	struct spi_device *spi = tps65912->spi_device;
> +	u8 *data = (u8 *) src;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	unsigned long spi_data = 1 << 23 | addr << 15 | *data;
> +	struct spi_transfer xfer;
> +	struct spi_message msg;
> +	u32 tx_buf = 0, rx_buf = 0;
These are initialized below. Can we have a blank line here please.
> +	tx_buf = spi_data;
> +	rx_buf = 0;
> +
> +	xfer.tx_buf	= &tx_buf;
> +	xfer.rx_buf	= NULL;
> +	xfer.len	= sizeof(unsigned long);
> +	xfer.bits_per_word = 24;
> +
> +	spi_message_init(&msg);
> +	spi_message_add_tail(&xfer, &msg);
> +
> +	ret = spi_sync(spi, &msg);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int tps65912_spi_read(struct tps65912 *tps65912, u8 addr,
> +							int bytes, void *dest)
> +{
> +	struct spi_device *spi = tps65912->spi_device;
> +
> +	unsigned long spi_data = 0 << 23 | addr << 15;

Is the 0 << 23 meant to be 1 << 23? Like the write function.

> +	struct spi_transfer xfer;
> +	struct spi_message msg;
> +	int ret;
> +	u8 *data = (u8 *) dest;
Shouldn't need to cast a void *

> +	u32 tx_buf = 0, rx_buf = 0;
These are initialized below.

> +	tx_buf = spi_data;
> +	rx_buf = 0;
> +
> +	xfer.tx_buf	= &tx_buf;
> +	xfer.rx_buf	= &rx_buf;
> +	xfer.len	= sizeof(unsigned long);
> +	xfer.bits_per_word = 24;
> +
> +	spi_message_init(&msg);
> +	spi_message_add_tail(&xfer, &msg);
> +
> +	if (spi == NULL)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	ret = spi_sync(spi, &msg);
> +	if (ret == 0)
> +		*data = (u8) (rx_buf & 0xFF);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
The spi read/write functions both ignore the bytes argument and only
transfer one byte, whereas the i2c versions appear to read/write
multiple bytes. Which one is correct?


I'm confused about init_data in this function.
> +static int __devinit tps65912_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
> +	struct tps65912 *tps65912;
> +	struct tps65912_platform_data *init_data;
> +	int dcdc_avs, value, ret = 0;
> +
> +	init_data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct tps65912_platform_data),
> +								GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (init_data == NULL)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

We zero allocate it here

> +	tps65912 = kzalloc(sizeof(struct tps65912), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (tps65912 == NULL)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	tps65912->dev = &spi->dev;
> +	tps65912->spi_device = spi;
> +	tps65912->read = tps65912_spi_read;
> +	tps65912->write = tps65912_spi_write;
> +	mutex_init(&tps65912->io_mutex);
> +
> +	dcdc_avs = (init_data->is_dcdc1_avs << 0 |
> +				init_data->is_dcdc2_avs  << 1 |
> +					init_data->is_dcdc3_avs << 2 |
> +						init_data->is_dcdc4_avs << 3);

And then use it here so dcdc_avs is guaranteed to be zero.

> +	if (dcdc_avs) {
> +		tps65912->read(tps65912, TPS65912_I2C_SPI_CFG, 1, &value);
> +		dcdc_avs |= value;
> +		tps65912->write(tps65912, TPS65912_I2C_SPI_CFG, 1, &dcdc_avs);
> +	}
Which means that this code will never run.

> +
> +	spi_set_drvdata(spi, tps65912);
> +	ret = mfd_add_devices(tps65912->dev, -1,
> +			      tps65912s, ARRAY_SIZE(tps65912s),
> +			      NULL, 0);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto err;
> +
> +	return ret;
> +
> +err:
> +	mfd_remove_devices(tps65912->dev);
> +	kfree(tps65912);
> +	return ret;
> +}

And as far as I can see nothing ever frees it.

Also this is not present in the i2c version of this function...

Thanks,

Jack

--
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/