| 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: <5396CB97.3000207@free-electrons.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:10:47 +0200
From: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Shuge <shuge@...winnertech.com>, kevin@...winnertech.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND2 PATCH v4 2/2] i2c: sunxi: add P2WI (Push/Pull 2 Wire
Interface) controller support
On 10/06/2014 10:54, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> Hello Wolfram,
>
> On 10/06/2014 10:38, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:49:52AM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>>> The P2WI looks like an SMBus controller which only supports byte data
>>> transfers. But, it differs from standard SMBus protocol on several
>>> aspects:
>>> - it supports only one slave device, and thus drop the address field
>>> - it adds a parity bit every 8bits of data
>>> - only one read access is required to read a byte (instead of a read
>>> followed by a write access in standard SMBus protocol)
>>> - there's no Ack bit after each byte transfer
>>>
>>> This means this bus cannot be used to interface with standard SMBus
>>> devices (the only known device to support this interface is the AXP221
>>> PMIC).
>> Good description. Should be a comment at the top of the driver to spread
>> the word.
> Sure, I'll copy this description in the driver.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
>>> Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 12 ++
>>> drivers/i2c/busses/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sun6i-p2wi.c | 349 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 362 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sun6i-p2wi.c
>> ...
>>
>>> +struct p2wi {
>>> + struct i2c_adapter adapter;
>>> + struct completion complete;
>>> + unsigned int irq;
>> Can be a local variable in probe.
> Yes, I'll remove it from this structure.
>
>>> + unsigned int status;
>>> + void __iomem *regs;
>>> + struct clk *clk;
>>> + struct reset_control *rstc;
>>> + int slave_addr;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static irqreturn_t p2wi_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> +{
>>> + struct p2wi *p2wi = dev_id;
>>> + unsigned long status;
>>> +
>>> + status = readl(p2wi->regs + P2WI_INTS);
>>> + p2wi->status = status;
>>> +
>>> + /* Clear interrupts */
>>> + status &= (P2WI_INTS_LOAD_BSY | P2WI_INTS_TRANS_ERR |
>>> + P2WI_INTS_TRANS_OVER);
>>> + writel(status, p2wi->regs + P2WI_INTS);
>>> +
>>> + complete(&p2wi->complete);
>>> +
>>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static u32 p2wi_functionality(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
>>> +{
>>> + return I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int p2wi_smbus_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr,
>>> + unsigned short flags, char read_write,
>>> + u8 command, int size, union i2c_smbus_data *data)
>>> +{
>>> + struct p2wi *p2wi = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
>>> + unsigned long dlen = P2WI_DLEN_DATA_LENGTH(1);
>>> +
>>> + if (addr > 0xff ||
>> Why 0xff? Does the PMIC support that? I2C addresses are 7-bit. You
>> won't even have a slave device if it has an illegal i2c address, so this
>> shouldn't happen.
> The P2WI protocol supports 8bits addresses, hence I added this 0xff check.
> Anyway, the PMIC I use (AXP221) is assigned the 0x68 address, and I
> don't think there are a lot of P2WI compatible devices in the wild, so
> we can just assume 7bits addresses are fine and rely on the core code
> checks.
My bad, the P2WI protocol does not have any address concept.
The 0xff value come from the P2WI_PMCR_PMU_DEV_ADDR field which is
specified to be 8 bits large.
Anyway, this does not change the fact that we can remove this check.
>
>>> + (p2wi->slave_addr >= 0 && addr != p2wi->slave_addr)) {
>>> + dev_err(&adap->dev, "invalid P2WI address\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (!data)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + writel(command, p2wi->regs + P2WI_DADDR0);
>>> +
>>> + if (read_write == I2C_SMBUS_READ)
>>> + dlen |= P2WI_DLEN_READ;
>>> + else
>>> + writel(data->byte, p2wi->regs + P2WI_DATA0);
>>> +
>>> + writel(dlen, p2wi->regs + P2WI_DLEN);
>>> +
>>> + if (readl(p2wi->regs + P2WI_CTRL) & P2WI_CTRL_START_TRANS) {
>>> + dev_err(&adap->dev, "P2WI bus busy\n");
>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + reinit_completion(&p2wi->complete);
>>> +
>>> + writel(P2WI_INTS_LOAD_BSY | P2WI_INTS_TRANS_ERR | P2WI_INTS_TRANS_OVER,
>>> + p2wi->regs + P2WI_INTE);
>>> +
>>> + writel(P2WI_CTRL_START_TRANS | P2WI_CTRL_GLOBAL_INT_ENB,
>>> + p2wi->regs + P2WI_CTRL);
>>> +
>>> + wait_for_completion(&p2wi->complete);
>>> +
>>> + if (p2wi->status & P2WI_INTS_LOAD_BSY) {
>>> + dev_err(&adap->dev, "P2WI bus busy\n");
>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (p2wi->status & P2WI_INTS_TRANS_ERR) {
>>> + dev_err(&adap->dev, "P2WI bus xfer error\n");
>>> + return -ENXIO;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (read_write == I2C_SMBUS_READ)
>>> + data->byte = readl(p2wi->regs + P2WI_DATA0);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct i2c_algorithm p2wi_algo = {
>>> + .smbus_xfer = p2wi_smbus_xfer,
>>> + .functionality = p2wi_functionality,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id p2wi_of_match_table[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-p2wi" },
>>> + {}
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, p2wi_of_match_table);
>>> +
>>> +static int p2wi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>> + struct device_node *childnp;
>>> + unsigned long parent_clk_freq;
>>> + u32 clk_freq = 100000;
>>> + struct resource *r;
>>> + struct p2wi *p2wi;
>>> + u32 slave_addr;
>>> + int clk_div;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-frequency", &clk_freq);
>>> + if (clk_freq > P2WI_MAX_FREQ) {
>>> + dev_err(dev,
>>> + "required clock-frequency (%u Hz) is too high (max = 6MHz)",
>>> + clk_freq);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (of_get_child_count(np) > 1) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "P2WI only supports one slave device\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + p2wi = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct p2wi), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!p2wi) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate p2wi struct\n");
>> No error strings for OOM.
> I'll drop this line.
>
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + p2wi->slave_addr = -1;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Authorize a p2wi node without any children to be able to use an
>>> + * i2c-dev from userpace.
>>> + * In this case the slave_addr is set to -1 and won't be checked when
>>> + * launching a P2WI transfer.
>>> + */
>>> + childnp = of_get_next_available_child(np, NULL);
>>> + if (childnp) {
>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(childnp, "reg", &slave_addr);
>>> + if (ret || slave_addr > 0xff) {
>> Again: Is 8 bit range important here? Otherwise I'd leave the check to the
>> core.
>>
>>> + dev_err(dev, "invalid slave address on node %s\n",
>>> + childnp->full_name);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + p2wi->slave_addr = slave_addr;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + r = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>> + p2wi->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, r);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(p2wi->regs)) {
>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(p2wi->regs);
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to retrieve iomem resource: %d\n", ret);
>> devm_ioremap_resource prints errors on its own.
> Ditto
>
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + snprintf(p2wi->adapter.name, sizeof(p2wi->adapter.name), pdev->name);
>>> + ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to retrieve irq: %d\n", ret);
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> + p2wi->irq = ret;
>>> +
>>> + p2wi->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(p2wi->clk)) {
>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(p2wi->clk);
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to retrieve clk: %d\n",
>>> + ret);
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(p2wi->clk);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clk: %d\n", ret);
>>> + return ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + parent_clk_freq = clk_get_rate(p2wi->clk);
>>> +
>>> + p2wi->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(dev, NULL);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(p2wi->rstc)) {
>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(p2wi->rstc);
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to retrieve reset controller: %d\n",
>>> + ret);
>> My general suggestion: Don't be too strict on the 80 char limit. IMO this dangling
>> 'ret' is not more readable.
> Okay, I'll fix that.
>
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Boris
>
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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