| 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: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:43:30 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Wei-Chun Pan <weichun.pan@...antech.com.tw>
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
"Louis.Lu" <Louis.Lu@...antech.com.tw>,
"Neo.Lo" <neo.lo@...antech.com.tw>,
"Hank.Peng" <Hank.Peng@...antech.com.tw>,
"Kevin.Ong" <Kevin.Ong@...antech.com.tw>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: iManager2: Add support for IT8516/18/28
Couple of things on top of Guenter's comments.
> +config MFD_IMANAGER2
> + tristate "Support for Advantech iManager2 EC ICs"
> + select MFD_CORE
So you're not using any other frameworks? I see quite a lot of Mailbox
stuff. Why aren't you using the Mailbox API, drivers/mailbox? I'm
gussing you'll need I2C somewhere down the line too. And Regmap?
> +/* imanager2_core.c - MFD core driver of Advantech EC IT8516/18/28
I can't find any documentation on this device. Is there a datasheet
or similar?
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Richard Vidal-Dorsch <richard.dorsch@...antech.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
> + * (at your option) any later version.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> + * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> + */
Documentation/CodingStyle - Comments.
Run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patches _before_ resending.
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
Don't like this.
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/advantech/imanager2.h>
> +
> +#define DRV_NAME CHIP_NAME
Or this.
> +#define DRV_VERSION "0.2.2"
> +
> +static struct platform_device *pdev;
Why don't you register from Device Tree or platform data? I.e. from
arch/<arch>/. While we're on the subject, which architecture(s) is
this likely to run on, or is this device completely agnostic?
> +static struct mfd_cell it85xx_devs[] = {
> + { .name = DRV_NAME "_hwm", },
> + { .name = DRV_NAME "_i2c", },
> +};
Don't like this, just use "it85xx" instead of DRV_NAME.
> +static int ec_authentication(struct it85xx *ec)
> +{
> + u8 tmp;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock(&ec->lock);
> +
> + if (inb(EC_IO_PORT_CMD) == 0xFF && inb(EC_IO_PORT_DATA) == 0xFF) {
One would guess that the Mailbox driver should be taking care of all
these.
[...]
> +static int ec_get_chip_type(struct it85xx *ec)
> +{
> + spin_lock(&ec->lock);
Can you explain to me why you've chosen spin_lock over, say a mutex?
> + outb(0x20, EC_SIO_CMD);
Don't use magic numbers - all addresses/masks should be #defined
[...]
> +static int ec_get_info(struct it85xx *ec)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + /* first kernel version that supports ITE mailbox */
What?
> + const u16 supmbox_1st_kver = 0x1105;
No way, please remove.
> + u8 *tmp = (u8 *)&ec->info.version.kernel_ver;
> +
> + spin_lock(&ec->lock);
> +
> + ret = ec_io_read(EC_CMD_ACPIRAM_READ,
> + EC_ACPIRAM_ADDR_KERNEL_MAJOR_VERSION, &tmp[0], 2);
> +
> + if (ec->info.version.kernel_ver >= supmbox_1st_kver) {
Yuk!
If you explain why you're doing this, maybe we can suggest another way
of achieving the same aim.
> +static int __init it85xx_probe(struct it85xx *ec)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = ec_authentication(ec);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = ec_get_chip_type(ec);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = ec_get_info(ec);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = ec_build_device_table(ec);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (request_region(EC_IO_PORT_DATA, 2, DRV_NAME) == NULL) {
devm_*
> + release_region(EC_IO_PORT_DATA, 2);
Delete
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + if (request_region(EC_ITE_PORT_OFS, 2, DRV_NAME) == NULL) {
Etc ...
> + release_region(EC_ITE_PORT_OFS, 2);
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init it85xx_device_add(const struct it85xx *ec)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + pdev = platform_device_alloc(DRV_NAME, 0);
> + if (pdev == NULL) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + pr_err("Device allocation failed\n");
> + goto exit;
Remove the 'exit' lable and just 'return ret' here.
> + }
> +
> + ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, ec,
> + sizeof(struct it85xx));
ec is not platform data, it's device data. Platform data should be
passed in via the platform_data structure or Device Tree.
> + if (ret != 0) {
> + pr_err("Platform data allocation failed\n");
> + goto exit_device_put;
> + }
> +
> + ret = platform_device_add(pdev);
> + if (ret != 0) {
> + pr_err("Device addition failed (%d)\n", ret);
> + goto exit_device_put;
> + }
> +
> + ret = mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, pdev->id, it85xx_devs,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(it85xx_devs), NULL, -1, NULL);
Second argument here should probably be -1 for 'auto'.
> + if (ret != 0) {
> + pr_err("Cannot add sub device (error=%d)\n", ret);
Once you've converted this whole driver to a platform device, all the
pr_*'s need moving over to dev_*'s.
> + goto exit_device_unregister;
> + } else {
No need for the else.
> + pr_info("MFD core driver v%s loaded\n", DRV_VERSION);
Remove this.
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +exit_device_unregister:
> + platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> +exit_device_put:
> + platform_device_put(pdev);
> +exit:
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +
Too many '\n'.
> +static int __init it85xx_init(void)
> +{
> + struct it85xx ec;
> +
> + memset(&ec, 0, sizeof(struct it85xx));
> + spin_lock_init(&ec.lock);
> + if (it85xx_probe(&ec) != 0)
Don't role your own Device Driver framework, instead [un]register with
platform_driver_[un]register().
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + return it85xx_device_add(&ec);
> +}
> +
> +static void __exit it85xx_exit(void)
> +{
> + release_region(EC_ITE_PORT_OFS, 2);
> + release_region(EC_IO_PORT_DATA, 2);
> + mfd_remove_devices(&pdev->dev);
This should all be done in .remove, not exit.
> + platform_device_unregister(pdev);
> + pr_info("MFD core driver removed\n");
Useless print, please remove.
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/imanager2_ec.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,1093 @@
[...]
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/advantech/imanager2.h>
> +
> +#define EC_UDELAY_TIME 100
> +#define EC_MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT 10000
Are these arbitrary?
> +/*===========================================================
> + * Name : wait_obf
> + * Purpose: wait output buffer full flag set
> + * Input : none
> + * Output : 0: success; else: fail
> + *===========================================================*/
These headers are ugly, please use kerneldoc format.
> +static int wait_obf(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> + for (i = 0; i < EC_MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT; i++) {
> + if ((inb(EC_IO_PORT_CMD) & OBF_MASK) != 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + udelay(EC_UDELAY_TIME);
> + }
> +
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +}
[...]
> +int ec_mailbox_read_buffer(struct it85xx *ec, u8 cmd, u8 para,
> + u8 *data, int len)
> +{
> + int ret, i;
> + u8 status;
> +
> + ret = ec_wait_cmd_clear(ec);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ec_write_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_PARA, para);
> + ec_write_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_CMD, cmd);
> +
> + ret = ec_wait_cmd_clear(ec);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = ec_read_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_STATUS, &status);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> + if (status != EC_MAILBOX_STATUS_SUCCESS)
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> + ec_read_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_DAT(i), &data[i]);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ec_mailbox_read_buffer);
I suggest that you'll need to move a lot of this code to
drivers/mailbox.
[...]
I need to stop here - this patch is massive.
Please break it up into more manageable chunks for your next submission.
A 1500 line patch, is pretty unacceptable.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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