linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2.6.27 1/1] gpiolib: add support for batch set of pins

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:32:14 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	"Jaya Kumar" <jayakumar.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	"Eric Miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"Eric Miao" <eric.miao@...vell.com>,
	"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
	"Philipp Zabel" <philipp.zabel@...il.com>,
	"Russell King" <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Ben Gardner" <bgardner@...tec.com>, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2.6.27 1/1] gpiolib: add support for batch set of pins

On Saturday 27 December 2008, Jaya Kumar wrote:
> Oh, gosh darn it, how time has flown. My email above was to make sure
> I have understood the feedback. I assume I should just get started on
> implementing. Just to double check, the plan is:
> - add bitmask support.
> - add get_batch support
> - improve naming. I think gpio_get_batch/gpio_set_batch sounds good.

I was expecting to get some agreement on interfaces first.


> I plan to have something like:
> 
> void gpio_set_batch(unsigned gpio, u32 values, u32 bitmask, int bitwidth);
> u32 gpio_get_batch(unsigned gpio, u32 bitmask, int bitwidth);

I still don't like the word "batch" here.  Did you look
at the <linux/bitmask.h> interfaces as I suggested?  They
would suggest something rather different:

 - passing bitmasks as {unsigned long *bits, int count} tuples
 - separate calls to:
     * zero a set of bits (loop: gpio_set_value to 0)
     * fill a set of bits (loop: gpio_set_value to 1)
     * copy a set of bits (loop: gpio_set_value to src[i])
     * read a set of bits (loop: dst[i] = gpio_get_value)
     * ... maybe more

Any restriction to 32 bit value seems shortsighted.  It would
make sense to wrap the GPIO bitmask descriptions in a struct,
letting drivers work with smaller sets -- probably most would
fit into a single "unsigned long".


> I think I should explain the bitmask and bitwidth choice. The intended
> use case is:
> for (i=0; i < 800*600; i++) {
>  gpio_set_batch(...)
> }
> 
> bitwidth (needed to iterate and map to chip ngpios) could be
> calculated from bitmask, but that involves iteratively counting bits
> from the mask, so we would have to do 800*600 bit counts. Unless, we
> do ugly things like cache the previous bitwidth/mask and compare
> against the current caller arguments. Given that the bitwidth would
> typically be a fixed value, I believe it is more intuitive for the
> caller to provide it, eg:
> 
> gpio_set_batch(DB0, value, 0xFFFF, 16)
> 
> which has the nice performance benefit of skipping all the bit
> counting in the most common use case scenario.

That doesn't explain the bit mask and bitwidth parameters at all.


> While we are here, I was thinking about it, and its better if I give
> gpio_request/free/direction_batch a miss for now.

Let's not and say we didn't.  Providing incomplete interfaces
isn't really much help.


> Nothing prevents 
> those features being added at a later point. That way I can focus on
> getting gpio_set/get_batch implemented correctly and merged as the
> first step.

First step needs to be defining the interface extensions needed.

- Dave
--
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/