| 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: <CANLsYky0keX_z0ZggTxst2SfLxB7i1YgcWBOkiV08KHo8mySSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:12:38 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Pratik Patel <pratikp@...eaurora.org>,
Vikas Varshney <varshney@...com>, Al Grant <Al.Grant@....com>,
Jonas Svennebring <jonas.svennebring@...gotech.com>,
James King <james.king@...aro.org>,
Panchaxari Prasannamurthy Tumkur
<panchaxari.prasannamurthy@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...aro.org>,
Marcin Jabrzyk <marcin.jabrzyk@...il.com>,
r.sengupta@...sung.com, Robert Marklund <robbelibobban@...il.com>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] coresight: add CoreSight TMC driver
Thanks for the review - please see comments in-lined.
Mathieu
On 3 June 2014 03:09, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:43 PM, <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> +#define tmc_writel(drvdata, val, off) __raw_writel((val), drvdata->base + off)
>> +#define tmc_readl(drvdata, off) __raw_readl(drvdata->base + off)
>
> Why not writel_relaxed()/readl_relaxed()?
Done.
>
> Using __raw* accessors seem a bit thick. (Applies to all such defines.)
>
>> +#define TMC_LOCK(drvdata) \
>> +do { \
>> + /* settle everything first */ \
>> + mb(); \
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x0, CORESIGHT_LAR); \
>> +} while (0)
>> +#define TMC_UNLOCK(drvdata) \
>> +do { \
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, CORESIGHT_UNLOCK, CORESIGHT_LAR); \
>> + /* make sure everyone sees this */ \
>> + mb(); \
>> +} while (0)
>
> Convert these to static inlines. No need for them to be #defines
> at all really.
Done.
>
>> +#define BYTES_PER_WORD 4
>
> But please. Just using the number 4 everywhere is clear enough.
>
>> +struct tmc_drvdata {
>> + void __iomem *base;
>> + struct device *dev;
>> + struct coresight_device *csdev;
>> + struct miscdevice miscdev;
>> + struct clk *clk;
>> + spinlock_t spinlock;
>> + int read_count;
>
> Can this really be negative?
It is useful for debugging, as an example see "tmc_release()". If the
count drops below '0' there is obviously a problem. Do you see a cost
in keeping this as an 'int'? What do you advise here?
>
>> + bool reading;
>> + char *buf;
>> + dma_addr_t paddr;
>> + void __iomem *vaddr;
>> + uint32_t size;
>
> Use u32
>
>> + bool enable;
>> + enum tmc_config_type config_type;
>> + uint32_t trigger_cntr;
>
> Use u32
>
>> +};
>
> This struct overall could use some kerneldoc.
Would writing a comment for each field qualify?
>
>> +static void tmc_flush_and_stop(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>> +{
>> + int count;
>
> Why not call this variable "i" as per convention.
>
>> + uint32_t ffcr;
>
> u32
>
>> +
>> + ffcr = tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_FFCR);
>> + ffcr |= BIT(12);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, ffcr, TMC_FFCR);
>> + ffcr |= BIT(6);
>
> A bit unclear what bit 12 and 6 does. Either #define them or add comments.
>
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, ffcr, TMC_FFCR);
>> + /* Ensure flush completes */
>> + for (count = TIMEOUT_US; BVAL(tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_FFCR), 6) != 0
>> + && count > 0; count--)
>> + udelay(1);
>> + WARN(count == 0, "timeout while flushing TMC, TMC_FFCR: %#x\n",
>> + tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_FFCR));
>> +
>> + tmc_wait_for_ready(drvdata);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_enable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>> +{
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x1, TMC_CTL);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_disable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>> +{
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x0, TMC_CTL);
>> +}
>
> I actually understand what bit 0 does in this register, but could
> also be #defined.
>
>> +static void __tmc_etb_enable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>> +{
>> + /* Zero out the memory to help with debug */
>> + memset(drvdata->buf, 0, drvdata->size);
>> +
>> + TMC_UNLOCK(drvdata);
>> +
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, TMC_MODE_CIRCULAR_BUFFER, TMC_MODE);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x133, TMC_FFCR);
>
> 0x133? Que ce que c'est?
>
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->trigger_cntr, TMC_TRG);
>> + __tmc_enable(drvdata);
>> +
>> + TMC_LOCK(drvdata);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_etr_enable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t axictl;
>
> u32
>
>> + /* Zero out the memory to help with debug */
>> + memset(drvdata->vaddr, 0, drvdata->size);
>> +
>> + TMC_UNLOCK(drvdata);
>> +
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->size / BYTES_PER_WORD, TMC_RSZ);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, TMC_MODE_CIRCULAR_BUFFER, TMC_MODE);
>> +
>> + axictl = tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_AXICTL);
>> + axictl |= (0xF << 8);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, axictl, TMC_AXICTL);
>> + axictl &= ~(0x1 << 7);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, axictl, TMC_AXICTL);
>> + axictl = (axictl & ~0x3) | 0x2;
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, axictl, TMC_AXICTL);
>
> I don't understand these bits and shifts either.
>
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->paddr, TMC_DBALO);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x0, TMC_DBAHI);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x133, TMC_FFCR);
>
> More magic...
>
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->trigger_cntr, TMC_TRG);
>> + __tmc_enable(drvdata);
>> +
>> + TMC_LOCK(drvdata);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_etf_enable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>> +{
>> + TMC_UNLOCK(drvdata);
>> +
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, TMC_MODE_HARDWARE_FIFO, TMC_MODE);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x3, TMC_FFCR);
>> + tmc_writel(drvdata, 0x0, TMC_BUFWM);
>
> More magic.
>
>> + __tmc_enable(drvdata);
>> +
>> + TMC_LOCK(drvdata);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int tmc_enable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata, enum tmc_mode mode)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(drvdata->clk);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&drvdata->spinlock, flags);
>> + if (drvdata->reading) {
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&drvdata->spinlock, flags);
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->clk);
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (drvdata->config_type == TMC_CONFIG_TYPE_ETB) {
>> + __tmc_etb_enable(drvdata);
>> + } else if (drvdata->config_type == TMC_CONFIG_TYPE_ETR) {
>> + __tmc_etr_enable(drvdata);
>> + } else {
>> + if (mode == TMC_MODE_CIRCULAR_BUFFER)
>> + __tmc_etb_enable(drvdata);
>> + else
>> + __tmc_etf_enable(drvdata);
>> + }
>> + drvdata->enable = true;
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&drvdata->spinlock, flags);
>> +
>> + dev_info(drvdata->dev, "TMC enabled\n");
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int tmc_enable_sink(struct coresight_device *csdev)
>> +{
>> + struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(csdev->dev.parent);
>> +
>> + return tmc_enable(drvdata, TMC_MODE_CIRCULAR_BUFFER);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int tmc_enable_link(struct coresight_device *csdev, int inport,
>> + int outport)
>> +{
>> + struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(csdev->dev.parent);
>> +
>> + return tmc_enable(drvdata, TMC_MODE_HARDWARE_FIFO);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_etb_dump(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>
> I'm no fan of prefixing functions with __underscores and cannot see why
> this is done here even, just seems like force of habit. Please cut them.
> Rename the function slightly to correspond to what it does if it collides
> with another function.
Done.
>
>> +{
>> + enum tmc_mem_intf_width memwidth;
>> + uint8_t memwords;
>
> u8
>
>> + char *bufp;
>> + uint32_t read_data;
>
> u32
>
> (...)
>> + bufp = drvdata->buf;
>> + while (1) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < memwords; i++) {
>> + read_data = tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_RRD);
>> + if (read_data == 0xFFFFFFFF)
>> + return;
>> + memcpy(bufp, &read_data, BYTES_PER_WORD);
>> + bufp += BYTES_PER_WORD;
>
> Use 4 rather than BYTES_PER_WORD please.
>
> (...)
>> +static void __tmc_etr_dump(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>
> Cut __
>
>> +{
>> + uint32_t rwp, rwphi;
>
> u32
>
>> + rwp = tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_RWP);
>> + rwphi = tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_RWPHI);
>> +
>> + if (BVAL(tmc_readl(drvdata, TMC_STS), 0))
>> + drvdata->buf = drvdata->vaddr + rwp - drvdata->paddr;
>> + else
>> + drvdata->buf = drvdata->vaddr;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_etr_disable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>
> Cut __
>
>> +{
>> + TMC_UNLOCK(drvdata);
>> +
>> + tmc_flush_and_stop(drvdata);
>> + __tmc_etr_dump(drvdata);
>> + __tmc_disable(drvdata);
>> +
>> + TMC_LOCK(drvdata);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __tmc_etf_disable(struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata)
>
> Cut __
>
> (...)
>> +static int tmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + uint32_t devid;
>
> u32
>
>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + struct coresight_platform_data *pdata = NULL;
>> + struct tmc_drvdata *drvdata;
>> + struct resource *res;
>> + struct coresight_desc *desc;
>> +
>> + if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
>> + pdata = of_get_coresight_platform_data(dev, pdev->dev.of_node);
>> + if (IS_ERR(pdata))
>> + return PTR_ERR(pdata);
>> + pdev->dev.platform_data = pdata;
>> + }
>> +
>> + drvdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*drvdata), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!drvdata)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + drvdata->dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, drvdata);
>> +
>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> + if (!res)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + drvdata->base = devm_ioremap(dev, res->start, resource_size(res));
>
> Use devm_ioremap_resource() instead.
I'm working on it.
>
>> + if (drvdata->config_type == TMC_CONFIG_TYPE_ETB) {
>> + desc->type = CORESIGHT_DEV_TYPE_SINK;
>> + desc->subtype.sink_subtype = CORESIGHT_DEV_SUBTYPE_SINK_BUFFER;
>> + desc->ops = &tmc_etb_cs_ops;
>> + desc->pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> + desc->dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + desc->debugfs_ops = tmc_etb_attr_grps;
>> + desc->owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> + drvdata->csdev = coresight_register(desc);
>> + if (IS_ERR(drvdata->csdev)) {
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(drvdata->csdev);
>> + goto err0;
>> + }
>> + } else if (drvdata->config_type == TMC_CONFIG_TYPE_ETR) {
>> + desc->type = CORESIGHT_DEV_TYPE_SINK;
>> + desc->subtype.sink_subtype = CORESIGHT_DEV_SUBTYPE_SINK_BUFFER;
>> + desc->ops = &tmc_etr_cs_ops;
>> + desc->pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> + desc->dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + desc->debugfs_ops = tmc_etr_attr_grps;
>> + desc->owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> + drvdata->csdev = coresight_register(desc);
>> + if (IS_ERR(drvdata->csdev)) {
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(drvdata->csdev);
>> + goto err0;
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + desc->type = CORESIGHT_DEV_TYPE_LINKSINK;
>> + desc->subtype.sink_subtype = CORESIGHT_DEV_SUBTYPE_SINK_BUFFER;
>> + desc->subtype.link_subtype = CORESIGHT_DEV_SUBTYPE_LINK_FIFO;
>> + desc->ops = &tmc_etf_cs_ops;
>> + desc->pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>> + desc->dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + desc->debugfs_ops = tmc_etf_attr_grps;
>> + desc->owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> + drvdata->csdev = coresight_register(desc);
>> + if (IS_ERR(drvdata->csdev)) {
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(drvdata->csdev);
>> + goto err0;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> Actually you set some stuff like desc->dev and pdata to the
> same thing in all three clauses... Do it before the if/else-ladder
> and cut the repititions.
Sure thing.
>
>> + drvdata->miscdev.name = ((struct coresight_platform_data *)
>> + (pdev->dev.platform_data))->name;
>> + drvdata->miscdev.minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR;
>> + drvdata->miscdev.fops = &tmc_fops;
>> + ret = misc_register(&drvdata->miscdev);
>
> Miscdev really? Well, not that I know any better.
>
>> +static struct platform_driver tmc_driver = {
>> + .probe = tmc_probe,
>> + .remove = tmc_remove,
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "coresight-tmc",
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> + .of_match_table = tmc_match,
>> + },
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int __init tmc_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&tmc_driver);
>> +}
>> +module_init(tmc_init);
>> +
>> +static void __exit tmc_exit(void)
>> +{
>> + platform_driver_unregister(&tmc_driver);
>> +}
>> +module_exit(tmc_exit);
>
> Convert to use module_platform_driver()
Very well.
>
> I think these review comments apply to many of the patches,
> so please take each comment and iterate over the code.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
--
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