| 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: <CACRpkdYY7e0OQL1YTEASxJw7E0FPAyOrPi0g93A9aRbfss0Vpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:38:24 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "Hongzhou.Yang" <srv_hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
srv_heupstream@...iatek.com, Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
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>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>,
"Joe.C" <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, dandan.he@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: mediatek: Add Pinctrl/GPIO driver for mt8135.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Hongzhou.Yang
<srv_hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> From: Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>
>
> The mediatek SoCs have GPIO controller that handle both the muxing
> and GPIOs.
>
> The GPIO controller have pinmux, pull enable, pull select, direction
> and output high/low control.
>
> This driver include common and mt8135 part. It implements the pinctrl
> part and gpio part.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@...iatek.com>
(...)
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/Kconfig b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/Kconfig
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..bae4be6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/Kconfig
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +if ARCH_MEDIATEK
> +
> +config PINCTRL_MTK_COMMON
> + bool
> + select PINMUX
> + select GENERIC_PINCONF
This should most certainly select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP, I'm
pretty sure you can use the common chained irqchip handling.
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mt8135.c
(...)
> +postcore_initcall(mtk_pinctrl_init);
Why? We prefer to use module_init() these days, and employ deferred
probe to order module probe order. Is there some problem with this?
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.c
(...)
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> +#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
These two includes go away with GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/machine.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinconf.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/pinmux.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <dt-bindings/pinctrl/mt65xx.h>
> +
> +#include "../pinconf.h"
> +#include "pinctrl-mtk-common.h"
> +
> +#define PINMUX_MAX_VAL 8
> +#define MAX_GPIO_MODE_PER_REG 5
> +#define GPIO_MODE_BITS 3
> +
> +static const char * const mt_gpio_functions[] = {
> + "func0", "func1", "func2", "func3",
> + "func4", "func5", "func6", "func7",
> +};
> +
> +static void __iomem *mt_get_base_addr(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl,
> + unsigned long pin)
> +{
> + if (pin >= pctl->devdata->type1_start && pin < pctl->devdata->type1_end)
> + return pctl->membase2;
> + return pctl->membase1;
> +}
> +
> +static void mt_pctrl_write_reg(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl,
> + unsigned long pin,
> + u32 reg, u32 d)
> +{
> + writel(d, mt_get_base_addr(pctl, pin) + reg);
> +}
1) Don't you want to use writel_relaxed() and
2) What does this helper really buy you? I would prefer to
inline this everywhere it's used. At the least tag this
function as inline.
> +static unsigned int mt_get_port(unsigned long pin)
> +{
> + return ((pin >> 4) & 0xf) << 4;
Isn't that equivalent to
return pin & 0xf0;
Add a comment explaining what's going on here.
> +static int mt_pmx_gpio_set_direction(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + struct pinctrl_gpio_range *range,
> + unsigned offset,
> + bool input)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg_addr;
> + unsigned int bit;
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +
> + reg_addr = mt_get_port(offset) + pctl->devdata->dir_offset;
> + bit = 1 << (offset & 0xf);
#include <linux/bitops.h>
bit = BIT(offset & 0xf);
> + if (input)
> + reg_addr += (4 << 1);
What is wrong with reg_add += 8;
> + else
> + reg_addr += 4;
> +
> + writel(bit, pctl->membase1 + reg_addr);
Note: here you're not using mt_pctrl_write_reg().
And I think you should use writel_relaxed().
> +static void mt_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg_addr;
> + unsigned int bit;
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
> +
> + reg_addr = mt_get_port(offset) + pctl->devdata->dout_offset;
> + bit = 1 << (offset & 0xf);
BIT(offset & 0xf)
> + if (value)
> + writel(bit, pctl->membase1 + reg_addr + 4);
> + else
> + writel(bit, pctl->membase1 + reg_addr + (4 << 1));
+8
> +static int mt_gpio_set_pull_conf(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + unsigned long pin, enum pin_config_param param,
> + enum pin_config_param argument)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg_pullen, reg_pullsel;
> + unsigned int bit;
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> + int pullen = 0;
> + int pullsel = 0;
> +
> + bit = 1 << (pin & 0xf);
BIT
> + switch (param) {
> + case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE:
> + pullen = 0;
> + pullsel = 0;
> + break;
> + case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP:
> + mt_pmx_gpio_set_direction(pctldev, NULL, pin, 1);
> + pullen = 1;
> + pullsel = 1;
> + break;
> + case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN:
> + mt_pmx_gpio_set_direction(pctldev, NULL, pin, 1);
> + pullen = 1;
> + pullsel = 0;
> + break;
> +
> + case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_ENABLE:
> + mt_pmx_gpio_set_direction(pctldev, NULL, pin, 1);
> + break;
> +
> + case PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT:
> + mt_pmx_gpio_set_direction(pctldev, NULL, pin, 0);
> + mt_gpio_set(pctl->chip, pin, argument);
> + return 0;
> +
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
Cut the whitespace newlines above I think.
> + if (pullen)
> + reg_pullen = mt_get_port(pin) +
> + pctl->devdata->pullen_offset + 4;
> + else
> + reg_pullen = mt_get_port(pin) +
> + pctl->devdata->pullen_offset + (4 << 1);
+8
> +
> + if (pullsel)
> + reg_pullsel = mt_get_port(pin) +
> + pctl->devdata->pullsel_offset + 4;
> + else
> + reg_pullsel = mt_get_port(pin) +
> + pctl->devdata->pullsel_offset + (4 << 1);
+8
> + mt_pctrl_write_reg(pctl, pin, reg_pullen, bit);
> + mt_pctrl_write_reg(pctl, pin, reg_pullsel, bit);
> + return 0;
> +}
(...)
> +static int mt_pctrl_is_function_valid(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl,
> + u32 pin_num, u32 fnum)
Return type should be bool.
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pctl->devdata->npins; i++) {
> + const struct mt_desc_pin *pin = pctl->devdata->pins + i;
> +
> + if (pin->pin.number == pin_num) {
> + struct mt_desc_function *func = pin->functions + fnum;
> +
> + if (func->name)
> + return 1;
> + else
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
return true/false;
> +static int mt_pctrl_dt_node_to_map_func(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl, u32 pin,
> + u32 fnum, struct pinctrl_map **maps)
> +static int mt_pctrl_dt_node_to_map_config(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl, u32 pin,
> + unsigned long *configs, unsigned num_configs,
> + struct pinctrl_map **maps)
> +static void mt_pctrl_dt_free_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + struct pinctrl_map *map,
> + unsigned num_maps)
> +static int mt_pctrl_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + struct device_node *node,
> + struct pinctrl_map **map,
> + unsigned *num_maps)
I'm worried about the escalating number of custom function->group
and pin config bindings, so I have submitted patches to fix this up and
allow for all-generic bindings to be used.
See:
http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=141223584006648&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=141223586106655&w=2
> + pins = of_find_property(node, "mediatek,pinfunc", NULL);
So I want to get rid of "mediatek,pinfunc" and just use "function"
for this.
> + err = pinconf_generic_parse_dt_config(node, &configs, &num_configs);
> + if (num_configs)
> + has_config = 1;
This implicitly uses "pins", which is nice.
> +static int mt_gpio_set_mode(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + unsigned long pin, unsigned long mode)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg_addr;
> + unsigned char bit;
> + unsigned int val;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned int mask = (1L << GPIO_MODE_BITS) - 1;
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +
> + reg_addr = ((pin / 5) << 4) + pctl->devdata->pinmux_offset;
That 5 and 4 needs some explanation, or atleast being #defined
for readability.
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pctl->lock, flags);
> + val = readl(pctl->membase1 + reg_addr);
readl_relaxed()?
> +static struct mt_desc_function *
> +mt_pctrl_desc_find_irq_by_name(struct mt_pinctrl *pctl,
> + const char *pin_name)
Why is it called *find_irq_by_name if it returns a
function? Seems more like find_function_from_pin_name
really.
And I don't know if that is such a good idea.
> +{
> + int i, j;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pctl->devdata->npins; i++) {
> + const struct mt_desc_pin *pin = pctl->devdata->pins + i;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(pin->pin.name, pin_name)) {
> + struct mt_desc_function *func = pin->functions;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < PINMUX_MAX_VAL; j++) {
> + if (func->irqnum != 255)
So why does it end at 255? Seems pretty arbitrary.
> + return func;
> +
> + func++;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +static int mt_pmx_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> + unsigned function,
> + unsigned group)
This is typically named pmx_set_mux() nowadays, please
use the pin control development tree at this point, the change will
be upstream in v3.18.
> +static const struct pinmux_ops mt_pmx_ops = {
> + .get_functions_count = mt_pmx_get_funcs_cnt,
> + .get_function_name = mt_pmx_get_func_name,
> + .get_function_groups = mt_pmx_get_func_groups,
> + .enable = mt_pmx_enable,
.set_mux =...
> +static int mt_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> +{
> + return pinctrl_request_gpio(chip->base + offset);
> +}
> +
> +static void mt_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> +{
> + pinctrl_free_gpio(chip->base + offset);
> +}
>
> +static int mt_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> + unsigned offset)
> +{
> + return pinctrl_gpio_direction_input(chip->base + offset);
> +}
> +
> +static int mt_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> + unsigned offset, int value)
> +{
> + return pinctrl_gpio_direction_output(chip->base + offset);
> +}
This is nice.
> +static int mt_gpio_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg_addr;
> + unsigned int bit;
> + unsigned int read_val = 0;
> +
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
> +
> + reg_addr = mt_get_port(offset) + pctl->devdata->dir_offset;
> + bit = 1 << (offset & 0xf);
bit = BIT(offset & 0xf);
> + read_val = readl(pctl->membase1 + reg_addr);
> + return ((read_val & bit) != 0) ? 1 : 0;
No do it like this:
return !!(read_val & bit);
> +static int mt_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> +{
> + unsigned int reg_addr;
> + unsigned int bit;
> + unsigned int read_val = 0;
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
> +
> + if (mt_gpio_get_direction(chip, offset))
> + reg_addr = mt_get_port(offset) + pctl->devdata->dout_offset;
> + else
> + reg_addr = mt_get_port(offset) + pctl->devdata->din_offset;
> +
> + bit = 1 << (offset & 0xf);
> + read_val = readl(pctl->membase1 + reg_addr);
> + return ((read_val & bit) != 0) ? 1 : 0;
> +}
Same comments on this function.
> +static int mt_gpio_of_xlate(struct gpio_chip *gc,
> + const struct of_phandle_args *gpiospec,
> + u32 *flags)
> +{
> + int pin;
> +
> + pin = gpiospec->args[0];
> +
> + if (pin > (gc->base + gc->ngpio))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (flags)
> + *flags = gpiospec->args[1];
> +
> + return pin;
> +}
Why do you need your own xlate function to do this?
What is wrong with of_gpio_simple_xlate() which seems to do
the same thing?
Incidentally that is what you will get if you just leave this
pointer in the vtable as unassigned.
> +static int mt_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> +{
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
> + struct mt_pinctrl_group *g = pctl->groups + offset;
> + struct mt_desc_function *desc = mt_pctrl_desc_find_irq_by_name(
> + pctl, g->name);
> + if (!desc)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + mt_gpio_set_mode(pctl->pctl_dev, g->pin, desc->muxval);
No mode setting in the .to_irq() function, that makes the irqchip
not orthogonal to the gpio_chip.
> + return desc->irqnum;
> +}
By the way use GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP for this and get rid
of .to_irq altogether.
(...)
> +static int mt_pctrl_build_state(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct mt_pinctrl *pctl = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + int i;
> +
> + pctl->ngroups = pctl->devdata->npins;
> +
> + pctl->groups = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> + pctl->ngroups * sizeof(*pctl->groups),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pctl->groups)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + pctl->grp_names = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> + pctl->ngroups * sizeof(*pctl->grp_names),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pctl->grp_names)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pctl->devdata->npins; i++) {
> + const struct mt_desc_pin *pin = pctl->devdata->pins + i;
> + struct mt_pinctrl_group *group = pctl->groups + i;
> + const char **func_grp;
> +
> + group->name = pin->pin.name;
> + group->pin = pin->pin.number;
> +
> + func_grp = pctl->grp_names;
> + while (*func_grp)
> + func_grp++;
> +
> + *func_grp = pin->pin.name;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
I don't understand what this function is doing so atleast it need
and explanation in kerneldoc above it.
(...)
> + ret = gpiochip_add(pctl->chip);
> + if (ret) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto pctrl_error;
> + }
Here you should be using gpiochip_irqchip_add()
followed by gpiochip_set_chained_irqchip().
> + for (i = 0; i < pctl->devdata->npins; i++) {
> + const struct mt_desc_pin *pin = pctl->devdata->pins + i;
> +
> + ret = gpiochip_add_pin_range(pctl->chip, dev_name(&pdev->dev),
> + pin->pin.number,
> + pin->pin.number, 1);
> + if (ret) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto chip_error;
> + }
Seems complicated but I don't know how complicated
your GPIO ranges are indeed.
> +chip_error:
> + if (gpiochip_remove(pctl->chip))
We have removed the return value from gpiochip_remove() so rebase
to upstream here. No if(..)
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.h b/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.h
(...)
> +struct mt_desc_pin {
> + struct pinctrl_pin_desc pin;
> + const char *chip;
> + struct mt_desc_function *functions;
Why does a pin need to know about functions...
> +};
Don't invent custom pin container structures. Look:
/**
* struct pinctrl_pin_desc - boards/machines provide information on their
* pins, pads or other muxable units in this struct
* @number: unique pin number from the global pin number space
* @name: a name for this pin
* @drv_data: driver-defined per-pin data. pinctrl core does not touch this
*/
struct pinctrl_pin_desc {
unsigned number;
const char *name;
void *drv_data;
};
You add your stuff to drv_data() rather than including this struct
into your own struct.
> +#define MT_PIN(_pin, _pad, _chip, ...) \
> + { \
> + .pin = _pin, \
> + .chip = _chip, \
> + .functions = (struct mt_desc_function[]){ \
> + __VA_ARGS__, { } }, \
> + }
> +
> +#define MT_FUNCTION(_val, _name) \
> + { \
> + .name = _name, \
> + .muxval = _val, \
> + .irqnum = 255, \
255 eh?
> + }
> +
> +#define MT_FUNCTION_IRQ(_val, _name, _irq) \
> + { \
> + .name = _name, \
> + .muxval = _val, \
> + .irqnum = _irq, \
> + }
> +
> +struct mt_pinctrl_group {
> + const char *name;
> + unsigned long config;
> + unsigned pin;
> +};
> +
> +struct mt_gpio_devdata {
> + const struct mt_desc_pin *pins;
> + int npins;
> + unsigned int dir_offset;
> + unsigned int ies_offset;
> + unsigned int pullen_offset;
> + unsigned int pullsel_offset;
> + unsigned int drv_offset;
> + unsigned int invser_offset;
> + unsigned int dout_offset;
> + unsigned int din_offset;
> + unsigned int pinmux_offset;
> + unsigned short type1_start;
> + unsigned short type1_end;
> +};
Add some kerneldoc for this struct as it't not apparently
self-evident.
> +static const struct mt_desc_pin mt_pins_mt8135[] = {
> + MT_PIN(
> + PINCTRL_PIN(0, "MSDC0_DAT7"),
> + "D21", "mt8135",
> + MT_FUNCTION(0, "GPIO0"),
> + MT_FUNCTION(1, "MSDC0_DAT7"),
> + MT_FUNCTION_IRQ(2, "EINT49", 49),
> + MT_FUNCTION(3, "I2SOUT_DAT"),
> + MT_FUNCTION(4, "DAC_DAT_OUT"),
> + MT_FUNCTION(5, "PCM1_DO"),
> + MT_FUNCTION(6, "SPI1_MO"),
> + MT_FUNCTION(7, "NALE")
> + ),
I don't think this is a good idea and to encode all functions in a pin,
rather the revers is custom: define all functions and collect arrays
of pin numbers in the definitions of pin groups, then map the functions
and groups of pins together.
Look at other drivers for examples..
I don't like the device tree bindings for the very same reason: it moves
all this numeric encoding of pin-functions into the device tree instead
of combining group+function strings like most drivers do.
Is there some special reason to why you're turning this on its head?
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