| 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: <20140617232605.GB25525@mithrandir>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:26:06 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 1/2] pwm: Add Allwinner SoC support
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sunxi.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sunxi.c
[...]
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pwm.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
These should be ordered alphabetically.
> +#define PWM_CTRL_REG 0x0
> +
> +#define PWM_CH_PRD_BASE 0x4
> +#define PWM_CH_PRD_OFF 0x4
Is this supposed to be an offset? If so, then maybe it should be named
PWM_CH_PRD_OFFSET?
> +#define PWM_CH_PRD(x) (PWM_CH_PRD_BASE + PWM_CH_PRD_OFF * (x))
x is the channel number? If so maybe call that parameter "ch"?
> +#define PWMCH_OFFSET 15
> +#define PWM_PRESCAL_MASK GENMASK(3, 0)
> +#define PWM_PRESCAL_OFF 0
> +#define PWM_EN BIT(4)
> +#define PWM_ACT_STATE BIT(5)
> +#define PWM_CLK_GATING BIT(6)
> +#define PWM_MODE BIT(7)
> +#define PWM_PULSE BIT(8)
> +#define PWM_BYPASS BIT(9)
> +
> +#define PWM_RDY_BASE 28
> +#define PWM_RDY_OFF 1
> +#define PWM_RDY(x) BIT(PWM_RDY_BASE + PWM_RDY_OFF * (x))
Some comments as for PWM_CH_PRD above.
> +#define PWM_PRD_ACT_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
This seems to be unused.
> +#define PWM_PRD(x) ((x - 1) << 16)
x should be enclosed in ().
> +#define PWM_PRD_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
> +
> +#define BIT_CH(bit, chan) (bit << (chan * PWMCH_OFFSET))
There should be a space instead of a tab between "define" and
"BIT_CH(...)".
> +u32 prescal_table[] = { 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 0, 0, 0,
> + 12000, 24000, 36000, 48000, 72000,
> + 0, 0, 1 };
static const? Also this is oddly formatted. I'd prefer:
static const u32 prescal_table[] = {
...
...
};
Also for readability I'd go for "prescaler_table" or "prescale_table".
> +struct sunxi_pwm_data {
> + bool has_rdy;
> +};
> +
> +struct sunxi_pwm_chip {
> + struct pwm_chip chip;
> + struct clk *clk;
> + void __iomem *base;
> + struct mutex ctrl_lock;
> + const struct sunxi_pwm_data *data;
> +};
> +
> +#define to_sunxi_pwm_chip(chip) container_of(chip, struct sunxi_pwm_chip, chip)
This should be a static inline function.
> +static inline u32 sunxi_pwm_readl(struct sunxi_pwm_chip *chip,
> + unsigned long offset)
> +{
> + return readl(chip->base + offset);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void sunxi_pwm_writel(struct sunxi_pwm_chip *chip,
> + unsigned long offset, unsigned long val)
Make val u32 for consistency with sunxi_pwm_readl()? Also I'd prefer if
this function preserved the same parameter order as writel().
> +static int sunxi_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> +{
> + struct sunxi_pwm_chip *sunxi_pwm = to_sunxi_pwm_chip(chip);
> + u32 clk_rate, prd, dty;
> + u64 div;
> + u32 val, clk_gate;
These can both go onto the same line as the other u32s above.
> + int i, ret;
I think i should be unsigned. And maybe rename ret to err since it's not
used as a return value at all.
> +
> + clk_rate = clk_get_rate(sunxi_pwm->clk);
> +
> + /* First, test without any divider */
> + i = PWM_PRESCAL_MASK;
I don't see where this value of I is used.
> + div = clk_rate * period_ns;
> + do_div(div, 1000000000);
> + if (div > PWM_PRD_MASK) {
> + /* Then go up from the first divider */
> + for (i = 0; i < PWM_PRESCAL_MASK; i++) {
> + if (!prescal_table[i])
> + continue;
> + div = clk_rate / prescal_table[i];
> + div = div * period_ns;
> + do_div(div, 1000000000);
Maybe:
div = clk_rate / prescal_table[i];
do_div(div * period_ns, 1000000000);
? Also 1000000000 == NSEC_PER_SEC, so maybe use that instead.
> + if (div <= PWM_PRD_MASK)
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (div > PWM_PRD_MASK) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "prescaler exceeds the maximum value\n");
Nit: the prescaler doesn't exceed anything. Rather the period exceeds
the maximum.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + prd = div;
> + div *= duty_ns;
> + do_div(div, period_ns);
> + dty = div;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(sunxi_pwm->clk);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to enable PWM clock\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&sunxi_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> + val = sunxi_pwm_readl(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> +
> + if (sunxi_pwm->data->has_rdy && (val & PWM_RDY(pwm->hwpwm))) {
> + mutex_unlock(&sunxi_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(sunxi_pwm->clk);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
> + clk_gate = val & BIT_CH(PWM_CLK_GATING, pwm->hwpwm);
> + if (clk_gate) {
> + val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_CLK_GATING, pwm->hwpwm);
> + sunxi_pwm_writel(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG, val);
> + }
> +
> + val = sunxi_pwm_readl(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> + val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_PRESCAL_MASK, pwm->hwpwm);
> + val |= i;
Ah, this is where the initial value is used. Perhaps rename i to
prescaler to make it more obvious what it is.
> + sunxi_pwm_writel(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG, val);
> +
> + sunxi_pwm_writel(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CH_PRD(pwm->hwpwm), dty | PWM_PRD(prd));
Maybe split this into two lines for readability:
val = dty | PWM_PRD(prd);
sunxi_pwm_writel(...);
Also does dty need to be range-checked so it doesn't spill over into the
PRD field?
> +static int sunxi_pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + enum pwm_polarity polarity)
> +{
> + struct sunxi_pwm_chip *sunxi_pwm = to_sunxi_pwm_chip(chip);
> + u32 val;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(sunxi_pwm->clk);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to enable PWM clock\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&sunxi_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> + val = sunxi_pwm_readl(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG);
> +
> + if (polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> + val &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_ACT_STATE, pwm->hwpwm);
> + else
> + val |= BIT_CH(PWM_ACT_STATE, pwm->hwpwm);
> +
> +
There's an extra blank line here.
> +static int sunxi_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct sunxi_pwm_chip *sunxi_pwm;
Perhaps just "pwm" or "sunxi"? sunxi_pwm is kind of redundant.
> + struct resource *res;
> + int ret;
> +
> + const struct of_device_id *match;
There should be no blank line above this one.
> +
> + match = of_match_device(sunxi_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> + if (!match || !match->data)
None of this can ever happen. match would only be NULL if the table
doesn't contain a matching entry for this device. But in that case the
driver's .probe() wouldn't have been called anyway. And none of the
entries have a NULL .data field, so no need to check for that either.
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + sunxi_pwm = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*sunxi_pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!sunxi_pwm)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + sunxi_pwm->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> + if (IS_ERR(sunxi_pwm->base))
> + return PTR_ERR(sunxi_pwm->base);
> +
> + sunxi_pwm->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(sunxi_pwm->clk))
> + return PTR_ERR(sunxi_pwm->clk);
> +
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.ops = &sunxi_pwm_ops;
> +
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.base = -1;
Why the blank line between the above?
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.npwm = 2;
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.can_sleep = true;
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> + sunxi_pwm->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
> + sunxi_pwm->data = match->data;
> +
> + mutex_init(&sunxi_pwm->ctrl_lock);
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(sunxi_pwm->clk);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to enable PWM clock\n");
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + /* By default, the polarity is inversed, set it to normal */
> + sunxi_pwm_writel(sunxi_pwm, PWM_CTRL_REG,
> + BIT_CH(PWM_ACT_STATE, 0) |
> + BIT_CH(PWM_ACT_STATE, 1));
> + clk_disable_unprepare(sunxi_pwm->clk);
Why do you need to do this here? Doesn't this potentially cause
transients if a bootloader had this configured with inversed polarity?
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists