| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:09:02 +0200
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david-b@...bell.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] SPI: Add SPI driver for most known i.MX SoCs
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:11:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:54:32 +0200
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > v2: Updated and tested on i.MX35
> >
> > While there already is a SPI driver for i.MX1 in the tree there are
> > good reasons to replace it:
> >
> > - The inkernel driver implements a full blown SPI driver, but
> > the hardware can be fully supported using a bitbang driver.
> > This greatly reduces the size and complexity of the driver.
> > - The inkernel driver only works on i.MX1 SoCs. Unfortunately
> > Freescale decided to randomly mix the register bits for each
> > new SoC, This is quite hard to handle with the current driver
> > since it has register accesses in many places.
> > - The DMA API of the durrent driver is broken for arch-mx1 (as opposed
> > to arch-imx) and nobody cared to fix it yet.
>
> ah, there's some detail. I'l move this into the changelog for
> spi-remove-imx-spi-driver.patch.
>
> Still, it seesm that the current driver does work for some people.
> Removing it in this manner seems a bit risky. Unnecessarily risky?
ATM the old driver does not even compile, but we could keep both drivers
parallel for some time to see if somebody cares to fix it.
>
> > This driver has been tested on i.MX1/i.MX27/i.MX35 with an AT25 type
> > EEPROM and on i.MX27/i.MX31 with a Freescale MC13783 PMIC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
> > Tested-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +#define MXC_SPI_BUF_RX(type) \
> > +static void mxc_spi_buf_rx_##type(struct mxc_spi_data *mxc_spi) \
> > +{ \
> > + unsigned int val = readl(mxc_spi->base + MXC_CSPIRXDATA); \
> > + \
> > + if (mxc_spi->rx_buf) { \
> > + *(type *)mxc_spi->rx_buf = val; \
> > + mxc_spi->rx_buf += sizeof(type); \
> > + } \
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define MXC_SPI_BUF_TX(type) \
> > +static void mxc_spi_buf_tx_##type(struct mxc_spi_data *mxc_spi) \
> > +{ \
> > + type val = 0; \
> > + \
> > + if (mxc_spi->tx_buf) { \
> > + val = *(type *)mxc_spi->tx_buf; \
>
> Are these operations endian-safe? Seems not. Should they be? It
> would be pretty simple to do.
Honestly, I don't know if they should be endian-safe. So far i.MX only
works in little endian mode on Linux. I prefer making these functions
being obviously not endian-safe rather than pretending that I really
know what I'm doing.
>
> > + mxc_spi->tx_buf += sizeof(type); \
> > + } \
> > + \
> > + mxc_spi->count -= sizeof(type); \
> > + \
> > + writel(val, mxc_spi->base + MXC_CSPITXDATA); \
> > +}
> > +
> > +MXC_SPI_BUF_RX(u8)
> > +MXC_SPI_BUF_TX(u8)
> > +MXC_SPI_BUF_RX(u16)
> > +MXC_SPI_BUF_TX(u16)
> > +MXC_SPI_BUF_RX(u32)
> > +MXC_SPI_BUF_TX(u32)
> > +
> > +/* First entry is reserved, second entry is valid only if SDHC_SPIEN is set
> > + * (which is currently not the case in this driver)
> > + */
> > +static int mxc_clkdivs[] = {0, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64, 96, 128, 192,
> > + 256, 384, 512, 768, 1024};
>
> Could be made const - it's slightly preferable to have data in
> read-only locations if possible. It means that we'll get a nice oops
> if someone accidentally writes to them and sometimes it means that the
> data doesn't need to be copied out to read/write memory at boot-time.
>
> Perhaps the compiler does this anyway.
Ok, I'll change this.
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +static void mx27_trigger(struct mxc_spi_data *mxc_spi)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int reg;
> > +
> > + reg = readl(mxc_spi->base + MXC_CSPICTRL);
> > + reg |= MX27_CSPICTRL_XCH;
> > + writel(reg, mxc_spi->base + MXC_CSPICTRL);
> > +}
>
> This all looks rather SMP/preempt/interrupt-unsafe. Or does the SPI core
> provide the needed locking?
The spi core serialises accesses to the driver. The trigger/config
functions are only called with chip interrupts disabled or from the
interrupt handler. I think it should be safe.
>
> > +static int mx27_config(struct mxc_spi_data *mxc_spi,
> > + struct mxc_spi_config *config)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int reg = MX27_CSPICTRL_ENABLE | MX27_CSPICTRL_MASTER;
> > +
> > + reg |= mxc_spi_clkdiv_1(mxc_spi->spi_clk, config->speed_hz) <<
> > + MX27_CSPICTRL_DR_SHIFT;
> > + reg |= config->bpw - 1;
> > +
> > + if (config->mode & SPI_CPHA)
> > + reg |= MX27_CSPICTRL_PHA;
> > + if (config->mode & SPI_CPOL)
> > + reg |= MX27_CSPICTRL_POL;
> > + if (config->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH)
> > + reg |= MX27_CSPICTRL_SSPOL;
> > + if (config->cs < 0)
> > + reg |= (config->cs + 32) << MX27_CSPICTRL_CS_SHIFT;
> > +
> > + writel(reg, mxc_spi->base + MXC_CSPICTRL);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Dittoes everywhere.
>
> > +static int mx27_rx_available(struct mxc_spi_data *mxc_spi)
> > +{
> > + return readl(mxc_spi->base + MXC_CSPIINT) & MX27_INTREG_RR;
> > +}
> > +
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +static int __init mxc_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct spi_imx_master *mxc_platform_info;
> > + struct spi_master *master;
> > + struct mxc_spi_data *mxc_spi;
> > + struct resource *res;
> > + int i, ret;
> > +
> > + mxc_platform_info = (struct spi_imx_master *)pdev->dev.platform_data;
>
> Unneeded and undesirable cast of a void*.
Ok,
>
> > + if (!mxc_platform_info) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can't get the platform data\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Can this happen?
Yes, it happens when the platform code doesn't provide platform data.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists