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: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:41:43 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> To: Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org> CC: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] watchdog: qcom: add support for KPSS WDT On 09/18/2014 08:24 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:41:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 09/18/2014 03:26 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: >>> Add a driver for the watchdog timer block found in the Krait Processor >>> Subsystem (KPSS) on the MSM8960, APQ8064, and IPQ8064. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org> >> >> Hi Josh, >> >> comments inline. > > Thanks for taking a look! > > [..] >>> +static int qcom_watchdog_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> +{ >>> + struct qcom_wdt *wdt; >>> + struct resource *res; >>> + u32 tmp; >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + wdt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*wdt), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!wdt) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wdt); >>> + >>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); >>> + wdt->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); >>> + if (IS_ERR(wdt->base)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(wdt->base); >>> + >>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "clock-frequency", &tmp); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to get clock-frequency\n"); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + >> >> You might want to use a clock property here, and the complete sequence of >> devm_clk_get >> clk_prepare_enable >> clk_disable_unprepare >> clk_get_rate > > Agreed. I think this would be ideal. I'll need to take a closer look > at how this thing is clocked, and how/if the clocks are currently > being modelled. > I think you should be able to specify some kind of "fixed" clock. Other watchdog drivers use the mechanism; maybe you can find some examples. >>> + wdt->freq = tmp; >>> + >>> + wdt->wdd.dev = &pdev->dev; >>> + wdt->wdd.info = &qcom_wdt_info; >>> + wdt->wdd.ops = &qcom_wdt_ops; >>> + wdt->wdd.min_timeout = 1; >>> + wdt->wdd.max_timeout = 0x10000000U / wdt->freq; >> >> As written, wdt->freq can be 0, which results in a nice division by zero here. > > Indeed. I'll add a check. > >>> + watchdog_init_timeout(&wdt->wdd, 0, &pdev->dev); >> >> That leaves you with no default timeout if timeout-sec is not set in devicetree, >> which if I understand the code correctly might result in an immediate reset. >> Is this really what you want to happen ? > > I think I'd like to handle timeout-sec being unspecified as an error at > probe. If someone explicitly sets timeout-sec = <0>, then they get what > they ask for. I'll take another look to see how to make this happen. > Hmm.. kind of unusual. Usual would be to initialize the timeout together with min_timeout / max_timeout above and only force the user to specify a value if the default timeout is not desirable. You don't really gain anything by making timeout-sec mandatory. >>> + >>> + ret = watchdog_register_device(&wdt->wdd); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register watchdog\n"); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_wdt_of_table[] = { >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,kpss-wdt-msm8960", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,kpss-wdt-apq8064", }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,kpss-wdt-ipq8064", }, >>> + { }, >>> +}; >>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_wdt_of_table); >>> + >>> +static struct platform_driver qcom_watchdog_driver = { >>> + .probe = qcom_watchdog_probe, >> >> No remove function ? >> >> Yes, you don't need it, because the driver can only be built into the kernel, >> but there is a practical impact: It means the driver must always be built >> into the kernel even if the image is supposed to be used on different systems, >> some of which may not support this specific watchdog. >> >> Sure, you might say that you don't care about images supporting more than one >> hardware, but the tendency seems to be multi-target images nowadays. > > This was motivated by the addition of the restart_handler bits in patch > 3. For some reason I was thinking there were race conditions between > module unloading/the restart_handler mechanism, but looking at it again, > I'm not so sure. Is it safe to implement these handlers in modules? If > so, I'll revisit this. > Yes, it is safe. To ensure there are no race conditions was one of the reasons for implementing the restart handler as notifier call chain. Guenter -- 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