| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:53:06 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] leds: leds-gpio: Add support for GPIO
descriptors
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:56:09PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 04:26:25 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > GPIO descriptors are the preferred way over legacy GPIO numbers
> > > nowadays. Convert the driver to use GPIO descriptors internally but
> > > still allow passing legacy GPIO numbers from platform data to support
> > > existing platforms.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Acked-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
> > > Acked-by: Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > (...)
> >
> > > if (led_dat->blinking) {
> > > - led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(led_dat->gpio,
> > > - led_dat->new_level,
> > > - NULL, NULL);
> > > + int gpio = desc_to_gpio(led_dat->gpiod);
> > > + int level = led_dat->new_level;
> >
> > So this desc_to_gpio() is done only to call the legacy callback below?
> >
> > > + if (gpiod_is_active_low(led_dat->gpiod))
> > > + level = !level;
> >
> > And that leads to making it necessary to have this helper variable
> > to invert the level since that callback does not pass a descriptor
> > (which would inherently know if it's active low)....
> >
> > > +
> > > + led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(gpio, level, NULL, NULL);
> >
> > Is it *really* impossible to change all the users of this callback?
>
> You said it could be done in a followup patch. Here:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=141154536921643&w=4
>
> And Mika said he would add that to his TODO list:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=141155173924101&w=4
>
> I suppose that is still valid.
Yes, I'll just let dust to settle before sending out a patch that
converts the existing users of platform_gpio_blink_set() callback to
gpio descriptors.
>
> >
> > > led_dat->blinking = 0;
> > > } else
> > > - gpio_set_value_cansleep(led_dat->gpio, led_dat->new_level);
> > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(led_dat->gpiod, led_dat->new_level);
> >
> > (...)
> > > /* Setting GPIOs with I2C/etc requires a task context, and we don't
> > > * seem to have a reliable way to know if we're already in one; so
> > > * let's just assume the worst.
> > > @@ -72,11 +73,16 @@ static void gpio_led_set(struct led_clas
> > > schedule_work(&led_dat->work);
> > > } else {
> > > if (led_dat->blinking) {
> > > - led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(led_dat->gpio, level,
> > > - NULL, NULL);
> > > + int gpio = desc_to_gpio(led_dat->gpiod);
> > > +
> > > + if (gpiod_is_active_low(led_dat->gpiod))
> > > + level = !level;
> > > +
> > > + led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(gpio, level, NULL,
> > > + NULL);
> >
> > Same comment.
> >
> > > @@ -85,9 +91,10 @@ static int gpio_blink_set(struct led_cla
> > > {
> > > struct gpio_led_data *led_dat =
> > > container_of(led_cdev, struct gpio_led_data, cdev);
> > > + int gpio = desc_to_gpio(led_dat->gpiod);
> > >
> > > led_dat->blinking = 1;
> > > - return led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(led_dat->gpio, GPIO_LED_BLINK,
> > > + return led_dat->platform_gpio_blink_set(gpio, GPIO_LED_BLINK,
> > > delay_on, delay_off);
> >
> > Same comment.
> >
> > > @@ -97,24 +104,33 @@ static int create_gpio_led(const struct
> > > {
> > > int ret, state;
> > >
> > > - led_dat->gpio = -1;
> > > + if (!template->gpiod) {
> > > + unsigned long flags = 0;
> > >
> > > - /* skip leds that aren't available */
> > > - if (!gpio_is_valid(template->gpio)) {
> > > - dev_info(parent, "Skipping unavailable LED gpio %d (%s)\n",
> > > - template->gpio, template->name);
> > > - return 0;
> > > + /* skip leds that aren't available */
> > > + if (!gpio_is_valid(template->gpio)) {
> > > + dev_info(parent, "Skipping unavailable LED gpio %d (%s)\n",
> > > + template->gpio, template->name);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (template->active_low)
> > > + flags |= GPIOF_ACTIVE_LOW;
> > > +
> > > + ret = devm_gpio_request_one(parent, template->gpio, flags,
> > > + template->name);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + led_dat->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(template->gpio);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(led_dat->gpiod))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(led_dat->gpiod);
> > > }
> >
> > OK so this is the legacy codepath: point it out in a big fat
> > comment that this is the legacy codepath.
>
> That looks like it could be done in a followup patch too.
>
> Since the series is in my linux-next branch at this point, I really wouldn't
> like to reshuffle commits in it if that can be avoided.
>
> > > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/leds.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/leds.h
> > > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/leds.h
> > > @@ -251,6 +251,7 @@ struct gpio_led {
> > > unsigned retain_state_suspended : 1;
> > > unsigned default_state : 2;
> > > /* default_state should be one of LEDS_GPIO_DEFSTATE_(ON|OFF|KEEP) */
> > > + struct gpio_desc *gpiod;
> >
> > Put the new struct member right below the current "gpio"
> > member,
>
> It was done like that in previous versions, but turned out to cause problems
> to happen in testing. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to find a pointer
> to the original report ATM, but perhaps Mika can. Mika?
It is burried inside this thread:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg369522.html
--
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