| 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: <54C8EBB2.10101@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:01:22 +0000
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mmc: pwrseq_simple: Extend to support more pins
Hi Javier,
You are in a lead of 3 hrs from me..
Surprisingly I send very much same patch just few Mins ago :-)
May be we can merge goods in both :-)
On 28/01/15 10:10, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Many WLAN attached to a SDIO/MMC interface, needs more than one pin for
> their reset sequence. For example, is very common for chips to have two
> pins: one for reset and one for power enable.
>
> This patch adds support for more reset pins to the pwrseq_simple driver
> and instead hardcoding a fixed number, it uses the of_gpio_named_count()
> since the MMC power sequence is only built when CONFIG_OF is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> index 0958c696137f..9e51fe1051c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq_simple.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>
> #include <linux/mmc/host.h>
> @@ -19,34 +20,44 @@
>
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple {
> struct mmc_pwrseq pwrseq;
> - struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
> + struct gpio_desc **reset_gpio;
May be renaming it to reset_gpios makes more sense..
If you make this struct gpio_desc *reset_gpios[0]; You can aviod an
extra kmalloc and free ..
> + int nr_gpios;
> };
>
> static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
> {
[...
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> + int i;
>
> - if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> - gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio, 1);
> + for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> + if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i], 1);
...]
> }
>
> static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
> {
[...
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> + int i;
>
> - if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> - gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio, 0);
> + for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> + if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i], 0);
...]
Now that we have more code in mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on() and
mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(), Just move most of them into a common
function like:
static void __mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(struct mmc_host *host,
bool on)
{
struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
int i;
if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpios)) {
for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->ngpios; i++)
gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrseq->reset_gpios[i],
on ? : 0);
}
}
static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_pre_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
{
__mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(host, true);
}
static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_post_power_on(struct mmc_host *host)
{
__mmc_pwrseq_simple_power_on_off(host, false);
}
> }
>
> static void mmc_pwrseq_simple_free(struct mmc_host *host)
> {
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq = container_of(host->pwrseq,
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple, pwrseq);
> + int i;
>
> - if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio))
> - gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> + if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
> + for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> + if (!IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> + gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
> + kfree(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> + }
>
> kfree(pwrseq);
> host->pwrseq = NULL;
> @@ -63,17 +74,27 @@ int mmc_pwrseq_simple_alloc(struct mmc_host *host, struct device *dev)
> {
> struct mmc_pwrseq_simple *pwrseq;
> int ret = 0;
> + int i;
>
> pwrseq = kzalloc(sizeof(struct mmc_pwrseq_simple), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pwrseq)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - pwrseq->reset_gpio = gpiod_get_index(dev, "reset", 0, GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> - if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) &&
> - PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) != -ENOENT &&
> - PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio) != -ENOSYS) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> - goto free;
> + pwrseq->nr_gpios = of_gpio_named_count(dev->of_node, "reset-gpios");
> + if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
What happens if there are no gpios? This fuction should return -ENOENT
and should not even try to allocate pwrseq?
Probably you should do of_gpio_named_count before allocating memory.
> + pwrseq->reset_gpio = kzalloc(sizeof(struct gpio_desc *) *
> + pwrseq->nr_gpios, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++) {
> + pwrseq->reset_gpio[i] = gpiod_get_index(dev, "reset", i,
> + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> + if (IS_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) &&
> + PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) != -ENOENT &&
> + PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]) != -ENOSYS) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
is simple to add:
while(--i)
gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i])
> + goto free;
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> pwrseq->pwrseq.ops = &mmc_pwrseq_simple_ops;
> @@ -81,6 +102,13 @@ int mmc_pwrseq_simple_alloc(struct mmc_host *host, struct device *dev)
>
> return 0;
> free:
> + if (pwrseq->nr_gpios > 0) {
> + for (i = 0; i < pwrseq->nr_gpios; i++)
> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]))
> + gpiod_put(pwrseq->reset_gpio[i]);
> + kfree(pwrseq->reset_gpio);
> + }
> +
> kfree(pwrseq);
> return ret;
> }
>
I get a feeling that am just dumping my patch here.. If possible could
you have look at it too.
Thanks,
srini
--
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