linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] watchdog: xilinx: Use of_property_read

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]
Date:	Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:52:49 -0800
From:	Alejandro Cabrera <acabrera@...o.cujae.edu.cu>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, monstr@...str.eu,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] watchdog: xilinx: Use of_property_read_u32

On 22/2/2014 3:18 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 02/22/2014 05:08 PM, Alejandro Cabrera wrote:
>> On 22/2/2014 10:46 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>> Hi Michal,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> Use of_property_read_u32 functions to clean probe function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek<michal.simek@...inx.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck<linux@...ck-us.net>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>> - Remove one if checking and use variable directly
>>>>>
>>>> Looks good.
>>>>
>>>> Another comment/remark.
>>>>
>>>>> -    pfreq = (u32 *)of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>>>> -                    "clock-frequency", NULL);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -    if (pfreq == NULL) {
>>>>> +    rc = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, 
>>>>> "clock-frequency",&pfreq);
>>>>> +    if (rc) {
>>>>>           dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
>>>>>                "The watchdog clock frequency cannot be obtained\n");
>>>>>           no_timeout = true;
>>>>>       }
>>>>>
>>>>> -    tmptr = (u32 *)of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>>>> -                    "xlnx,wdt-interval", NULL);
>>>>> -    if (tmptr == NULL) {
>>>>> +    rc = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, 
>>>>> "xlnx,wdt-interval",
>>>>> + &xdev->wdt_interval);
>>>>> +    if (rc) {
>>>>>           dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
>>>>>                "Parameter \"xlnx,wdt-interval\" not found\n");
>>>>>           no_timeout = true;
>>>>> -    } else {
>>>>> -        xdev->wdt_interval = *tmptr;
>>>>>       }
>>>>>
>>>>> -    tmptr = (u32 *)of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>>>> -                    "xlnx,wdt-enable-once", NULL);
>>>>> -    if (tmptr == NULL) {
>>>>> +    rc = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, 
>>>>> "xlnx,wdt-enable-once",
>>>>> + &enable_once);
>>>>> +    if (rc)
>>>>>           dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
>>>>>                "Parameter \"xlnx,wdt-enable-once\" not found\n");
>>>>> -        watchdog_set_nowayout(xilinx_wdt_wdd, true);
>>>>> -    }
>>>> All the above properties are optional. Is a warning really
>>>> warranted in this case ? I usually associate a warning with
>>>> something that is wrong, which is not the case here.
>>>>
>>>> I would encourage you to drop those warnings, but that should be
>>>> a separate patch.
>>> I agree with Guenter: these are not really warnings. Seperate patch 
>>> is thus welcome.
>> Hi
>>
>> I support Michal intention, I think it is a warning because device 
>> tree blob must have the "xlnx,wdt-enable-once" property specified in 
>> order to allow the system to be sure of the real value of this 
>> property. In addition to, this warning can be helpful to detect a 
>> wrong device tree specification.
>>
>
> The dt documentation states that the properties are optional.
>
> Optional properties:
> - clock-frequency       : Frequency of clock in Hz
> - xlnx,wdt-enable-once  : 0 - Watchdog can be restarted
>                           1 - Watchdog can be enabled just once
> - xlnx,wdt-interval     : Watchdog timeout interval in 2^<val> clock 
> cycles,
> <val> is integer from 8 to 31.
>
> This clearly conflicts with your statement. An optional property
> is just that, optional. If it warrants a warning, it must
> not be optional. If you claim that not providing the properties
> would be "wrong", why are they defined as optional ?
Hi Guenter

I didn't know that these properties was classified as optional...
I think that they should not be, because all xilinx watchog devices (at 
least for microblaze processor)
have these properties defined in theirs MPD files and theirs values can 
be obtained during the
hardware specification to device tree conversion.
> What is your definition of "wrong" and "must have" ?
what I mean for "must have" is: if these properties can be obtained
for all xilinx watchdog devices they must be present in the device tree 
because they allows
the system (linux/user) to know exactly how a watchdog device is configured.
Because these properties always can be obtained from hardware design 
there is no
reason to leave them out from the device tree. This is why I consider 
that a device tree without
these properties should be considered as "wrong" device tree.
> How do you expect anyone to know that omitting those
> "optional" properties is by some definition "wrong" ?
I'm agree with you.
Maybe these properties shouldn't be optional.
For example suppose that "xlnx,wdt-enable-once" is missing in the device 
tree,
when a watchdog daemon ask for this property what is the obtained value ?
Independently of this value, why do not warn the user about this missing 
property
when it can always be in the device tree ?

Regards
Alejandro




50 Aniversario de la Cujae. Inaugurada por Fidel el 2 de diciembre de 1964  http://cujae.edu.cu


--
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/