| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <531EC6C0.4080202@st.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:18:08 +0100
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...com>,
Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <kernel@...inux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] pinctrl: st: Enhance the controller to manage
unavailable registers
On 03/10/2014 10:17 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> From: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
>>
>> This patch adds a new logic inside the st pinctrl to manage
>> an unsupported scenario: some sysconfig are not available!
>>
>> This is the case of STiH407 where, although documented, the
>> following registers from SYSCFG_FLASH have been removed from the SoC.
>>
>> SYSTEM_CONFIG3040
>> Output Enable pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions
>> and
>> SYSTEM_ CONFIG3050
>> Pull Up pad control for all PIO Alternate Functions
>>
>> Without managing this condition an imprecise external abort
>> will be detect.
>>
>> To do this the patch also reviews the st_parse_syscfgs
>> and other routines to manipulate the registers only if
>> actually available.
>> In any case, for example the st_parse_syscfgs detected
>> an error condition but no action was made in the
>> st_pctl_probe_dt.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...com>
>> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
>
> These two SOBs need reordering.
Right,
this will be changed here and everywhere else in the series.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>> index 9fb66aa..1721611 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>> @@ -410,25 +410,27 @@ static void st_pinconf_set_config(struct st_pio_control *pc,
>> unsigned int oe_value, pu_value, od_value;
>> unsigned long mask = BIT(pin);
>>
>> - regmap_field_read(output_enable, &oe_value);
>> - regmap_field_read(pull_up, &pu_value);
>> - regmap_field_read(open_drain, &od_value);
>> -
>> - /* Clear old values */
>> - oe_value &= ~mask;
>> - pu_value &= ~mask;
>> - od_value &= ~mask;
>> -
>> - if (config & ST_PINCONF_OE)
>> - oe_value |= mask;
>> - if (config & ST_PINCONF_PU)
>> - pu_value |= mask;
>> - if (config & ST_PINCONF_OD)
>> - od_value |= mask;
>> -
>> - regmap_field_write(output_enable, oe_value);
>> - regmap_field_write(pull_up, pu_value);
>> - regmap_field_write(open_drain, od_value);
>> + if (output_enable) {
>> + regmap_field_read(output_enable, &oe_value);
>> + oe_value &= ~mask;
>> + if (config & ST_PINCONF_OE)
>> + oe_value |= mask;
>> + regmap_field_write(output_enable, oe_value);
>> + }
>> + if (pull_up) {
>> + regmap_field_read(pull_up, &pu_value);
>> + pu_value &= ~mask;
>> + if (config & ST_PINCONF_PU)
>> + pu_value |= mask;
>> + regmap_field_write(pull_up, pu_value);
>> + }
>> + if (open_drain) {
>> + regmap_field_read(open_drain, &od_value);
>> + od_value &= ~mask;
>> + if (config & ST_PINCONF_OD)
>> + od_value |= mask;
>> + regmap_field_write(open_drain, od_value);
>> + }
>
> Nice change.
>
> Nit: For consistency with the changes below, please consider placing
> new lines between the 3 outer checks.
Done
>
>> }
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> -static void st_pinconf_get_direction(struct st_pio_control *pc,
>> - int pin, unsigned long *config)
>> +static void st_pinconf_get_direction(struct st_pio_control *pc, int pin,
>> + unsigned long *config)
>
> Unrelated change?
Yes this is unrelated.
I removed this change. It will be sent later with maybe other cosmetic
changes.
>
>> {
>> unsigned int oe_value, pu_value, od_value;
>
> Is it worth checking for (!config) here?
That would be better indeed.
But since that lack of safety check was already present before this
change, it should be handled in a separate patch.
I'll add this in my todo list.
>
>> - regmap_field_read(pc->oe, &oe_value);
>> - regmap_field_read(pc->pu, &pu_value);
>> - regmap_field_read(pc->od, &od_value);
>> + if (pc->oe) {
>> + regmap_field_read(pc->oe, &oe_value);
>> + if (oe_value & BIT(pin))
>> + ST_PINCONF_PACK_OE(*config);
>> + }
>>
>> - if (oe_value & BIT(pin))
>> - ST_PINCONF_PACK_OE(*config);
>> - if (pu_value & BIT(pin))
>> - ST_PINCONF_PACK_PU(*config);
>> - if (od_value & BIT(pin))
>> - ST_PINCONF_PACK_OD(*config);
>> + if (pc->pu) {
>> + regmap_field_read(pc->pu, &pu_value);
>> + if (pu_value & BIT(pin))
>> + ST_PINCONF_PACK_PU(*config);
>> + }
>>
>> + if (pc->od) {
>> + regmap_field_read(pc->od, &od_value);
>> + if (od_value & BIT(pin))
>> + ST_PINCONF_PACK_OD(*config);
>> + }
>> }
>
> Nice.
>
>> static int st_pinconf_get_retime_packed(struct st_pinctrl *info,
>> @@ -1105,8 +1116,21 @@ static int st_pctl_dt_setup_retime(struct st_pinctrl *info,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> -static int st_parse_syscfgs(struct st_pinctrl *info,
>> - int bank, struct device_node *np)
>> +
>> +static struct regmap_field *st_pc_get_value(struct device *dev,
>> + struct regmap *regmap, int bank,
>> + int data, int lsb, int msb)
>> +{
>> + struct reg_field reg = REG_FIELD((data + bank) * 4, lsb, msb);
>> +
>> + if (data < 0)
>> + return NULL;
>
> What happens is data < 0 and it's used in REG_FIELD?
Nothing bad, but I agree this is not crystal clear.
>
> Would it make more sense to make this check before calling REG_FIELD?
Yes, it will be done in the v4.
<snip>
Thanks,
Maxime
--
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