| 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, 22 May 2013 12:27:24 -0700
From: Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>
To: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>
CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] gpio: msm: Add device tree and irqdomain support
for gpio-msm-v2
On 5/22/2013 2:36 AM, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> Hi, Rohit
>
> Thanks for the patch!
Thanks for the comments... more below
>
> On 05/21/2013 09:32 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
>> This cleans up the gpio-msm-v2 driver of all the global define usage.
>> The number of gpios are now defined in the device tree. This enables
>> adding irqdomain support as well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
> <cut>
>
>>
>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tlmm_lock);
>> @@ -168,18 +173,20 @@ static void msm_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>>
>> static int msm_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>> {
>> - return MSM_GPIO_TO_INT(chip->base + offset);
>> + struct msm_gpio_dev *g_dev = to_msm_gpio_dev(chip);
>> + struct irq_domain *domain = g_dev->domain;
>> + return irq_create_mapping(domain, offset);
> IMO here you should use irq_find_mapping() and create irq mapping once
> in .probe. See below comment.
Looking at this more, I would prefer to get rid of the entire for loop
and the irq_create_mapping in probe and
just have the irq_create_mapping in msm_gpio_to_irq. This way we are not
allocating a descriptor for every gpio and only for the ones that call
the msm_gpio_to_irq.
>
>> }
>>
> <cut>
>
>> -static int msm_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
>> +static struct lock_class_key msm_gpio_lock_class;
>> +
>> +static int msm_gpio_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
>> + irq_hw_number_t hwirq)
>> +{
>> + irq_set_lockdep_class(irq, &msm_gpio_lock_class);
>> + irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &msm_gpio_irq_chip,
>> + handle_level_irq);
>> + set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct irq_domain_ops msm_gpio_irq_domain_ops = {
>> + .xlate = irq_domain_xlate_twocell,
>> + .map = msm_gpio_irq_domain_map,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int msm_gpio_irqdomain_init(struct device_node *node, int ngpio)
>> {
>> - int i, irq, ret;
>> + msm_gpio.domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, ngpio,
>> + &msm_gpio_irq_domain_ops, &msm_gpio);
>> + if (!msm_gpio.domain) {
>> + WARN(1, "Cannot allocate irq_domain\n");
> Are you sure that we want to WARN if no memory? I'd return an error and
> fail the probe if the driver can't works without interrupts.
Done.
>
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int msm_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + int i, irq, ret, ngpio;
>> + struct resource *res;
>> +
>> + msm_gpio.gpio_chip.label = pdev->name;
>> + msm_gpio.gpio_chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "ngpio", &ngpio);
>> + msm_gpio.gpio_chip.ngpio = ngpio;
>> +
>> + res = platform_get_resource(&pdev->dev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> + if (!res) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: no mem resource\n", __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + msm_tlmm_base = devm_ioremap_resource(pdev->dev, res);
>> + if (!msm_tlmm_base) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't allocate memory for msm tlmm base\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + msm_gpio.enabled_irqs = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>> + sizeof(unsigned long) * ngpio,
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + msm_gpio.wake_irqs = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>> + sizeof(unsigned long) * ngpio,
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + msm_gpio.dual_edge_irqs = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>> + sizeof(unsigned long) * ngpio,
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + bitmap_zero(msm_gpio.enabled_irqs, ngpio);
>> + bitmap_zero(msm_gpio.wake_irqs, ngpio);
>> + bitmap_zero(msm_gpio.dual_edge_irqs, ngpio);
>>
>> - bitmap_zero(msm_gpio.enabled_irqs, NR_GPIO_IRQS);
>> - bitmap_zero(msm_gpio.wake_irqs, NR_GPIO_IRQS);
>> - bitmap_zero(msm_gpio.dual_edge_irqs, NR_GPIO_IRQS);
>> - msm_gpio.gpio_chip.label = dev->name;
>> ret = gpiochip_add(&msm_gpio.gpio_chip);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "gpiochip_add failed with error %d\n", ret);
>> return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + summary_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> + if (summary_irq < 0) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No Summary irq defined for msmgpio\n");
>> + return summary_irq;
>> + }
>> +
>> + msm_gpio_irqdomain_init(pdev->dev.of_node, msm_gpio.gpio_chip.ngpio);
> Adding irqdomain might fail, could you check the return value. And if
> irqdomain init fail do we need to set up chained handler for summary_irq
> at all?
Done.
>
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < msm_gpio.gpio_chip.ngpio; ++i) {
>> irq = msm_gpio_to_irq(&msm_gpio.gpio_chip, i);
> I'd call irq_create_mapping() instead. This way the mapping will be
> created once in .probe and use irq_find_mapping() in gpio_to_irq.
Will get rid of this for loop as mentioned above. Thanks for catching this.
>
>> + irq_set_lockdep_class(irq, &msm_gpio_lock_class);
>> irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &msm_gpio_irq_chip,
>> handle_level_irq);
>> set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
> These three function calls are not needed anymore because
> irq_create_mapping() will call internally irqdomain .map operation. The
> .map already calls these three functions.
Done.
>
>> }
>>
>> - irq_set_chained_handler(TLMM_SCSS_SUMMARY_IRQ,
>> - msm_summary_irq_handler);
>> + irq_set_chained_handler(summary_irq, msm_summary_irq_handler);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
> - Stan
Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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