linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from platform devices

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <001a01cfd61b$5ac95a00$105c0e00$@samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:41:54 +0530
From:	Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@...sung.com>
To:	'Tomasz Figa' <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	lee.jones@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	vikas.sajjan@...sung.com, joshi@...sung.com, naushad@...sung.com,
	thomas.ab@...sung.com, chow.kim@...sung.com, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
	b29396@...escale.com, Li.Xiubo@...escale.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from platform
 devices

Hi Tomasz,

On Friday, September 19, 2014 Tomasz Figa wrote,
> Hi Pankaj,
> 
> Please see my comments inline.
> 
> On 19.09.2014 15:06, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
> > platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
> > certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
> > driver a syscon interface provider.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > -static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > +static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
> >  {
> > -	struct device_node *dn = data;
> > +	struct platform_device *pdev = NULL;
> > +	struct syscon *syscon;
> > +	struct regmap *regmap;
> > +	void __iomem *base;
> > +
> > +
> 
> nit: Stray blank line.
> 

OK. Will remove this.

> > +	if (!of_device_is_compatible(np, "syscon"))
> > +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> 
> I don't think this check is needed at all. I'd say that drivers should be
free to register a
> syscon provider for any node.

I think this check is correct, as only nodes having "syscon" as secondary
compatibility should be
used to create a syscon provider. And that's why we have "syscon" as
secondary compatibility in
device nodes which can be a syscon provider.

> 
> > +
> > +	syscon = kzalloc(sizeof(*syscon), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!syscon)
> > +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > +	base = of_iomap(np, 0);
> > +	if (!base)
> > +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > +	if (!of_device_is_available(np) ||
> 
> Wouldn't it be enough to simply call of_find_device_by_node(np) and if it
fails then
> instead create a dummy device?
> 

OK, this could be also one of approach, I will change accordingly.

> > +			of_node_test_and_set_flag(np, OF_POPULATED)) {
> > +		/* if device is already populated and avaiable then use it
*/
> > +		pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> > +		if (!(&pdev->dev))
> 
> This is just plain wrong, because this condition will always evaluate to
true (see the
> definition of struct platform_device). Shouldn't you rather just check the
pdev
> pointer?

OK, will update this.

> 
> > +			return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +
> > +	} else {
> > +		/* for early users create dummy syscon device and use it */
> > +		pdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*pdev), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		if (!pdev)
> > +			return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 
> Any clean-up on error path?

OK, will add error path. Also will use platform_device_alloc as suggested.

> 
> > +
> > +		pdev->name = "dummy-syscon";
> > +		pdev->id = -1;
> 
> Wouldn't you get an ID collision if more than one syscon is registered
early? Maybe
> the naming scheme from of_device_alloc() could be adopted partially?

I think this should not be an issue, passing id as -1 should take care of
this.
As you know Exynos has two syscon providers "pmu" and "sysreg" I have
written a test
code to check this scenario and tested it during early stage and I am
successfully able to get
PMU and SYSREG handle.
 
> 
> > +		device_initialize(&pdev->dev);
> 
> I wonder if you couldn't simply reuse platform_device_alloc() for all of
this, except
> the line below, which would still have to be handled separately.
> 
> > +		pdev->dev.of_node = np;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	regmap = regmap_init_mmio(&pdev->dev, base, &syscon_regmap_config);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
> > +		pr_err("regmap init failed\n");
> 
> If you have a dev here then you should be able to use dev_err() already.

OK.

> 
> > +		return ERR_CAST(regmap);
> > +	}

[snip]

> > +
> > +	if (!syscon)
> > +		syscon = of_syscon_register(np);
> > +
> > +	if (!IS_ERR(syscon))
> > +		return syscon->regmap;
> > +
> > +	return ERR_CAST(syscon);
> 
> nit: Usually error checking is done the opposite way, i.e.

OK, will change accordingly.

Thanks,
Pankaj Dubey
> 
> 	if (IS_ERR(syscon))
> 		return ERR_CAST(syscon);
> 
> 	return syscon->regmap;
> 
> Best regards,
> Tomasz

--
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/