| 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: <1426595474.24415.18.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:31:14 +0800
From: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
<rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>, <yh.chen@...iatek.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@...iatek.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
<yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtc: mediatek: Add MT63xx RTC driver
Hi Uwe,
Thanks your review.
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 16:30 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Eddie,
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:27:56PM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote:
> > From: Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@...iatek.com>
> >
> > Add Mediatek MT63xx RTC driver
> MT6397?
Yes, it is better to use MT6397
> > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
> > index f15cddf..8ac52d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
> > @@ -1427,6 +1427,16 @@ config RTC_DRV_MOXART
> > This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
> > will be called rtc-moxart
> >
> > +config RTC_DRV_MT63XX
> > + tristate "Mediatek Real Time Clock driver"
> > + depends on MFD_MT6397
> I suggest:
>
> depends on MFD_MT6397 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> (maybe + any hard dependencies you need for compilation).
OK, will fix it
>
> > + help
> > + This selects the Mediatek(R) RTC driver, you should add support
> > + for Mediatek MT6397 PMIC before select Mediatek(R) RTC driver.
> > +
> > + If you want to use Mediatek(R) RTC interface, select Y or M here.
> > + If unsure, Please select N.
> Given the dependency above I'd say choosing y here is fine. Instead of
> recommending that I'd just drop this line.
ok, will drop.
>
> > [...]
> > +static u16 rtc_read(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc, u32 offset)
> rtc_read is a bad name for a driver. There are already 6 functions with
> this name in the kernel. Better use a unique prefix.
I will use prefix mtk_
>
> > [...]
> > +static irqreturn_t rtc_irq_handler_thread(int irq, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = data;
> > + u16 irqsta, irqen;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > + irqsta = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_STA);
> Do you really need to lock for a single read access?
I think this lock is necessary, because other thread may access rtc
register at the same time, for example, call mtk_rtc_set_alarm to modify
alarm time.
>
> > + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> > +
> > + if (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL) {
> > + rtc_update_irq(rtc->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
> > + irqen = irqsta & ~RTC_IRQ_EN_AL;
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, irqen);
> > + rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mtk_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long time;
> > + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > + do {
> > + tm->tm_sec = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC);
> > + tm->tm_min = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_MIN);
> > + tm->tm_hour = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_HOU);
> > + tm->tm_mday = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_DOM);
> > + tm->tm_mon = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_MTH);
> > + tm->tm_year = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_YEA);
> > + } while (rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC) < tm->tm_sec);
> > + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> > +
> > + tm->tm_year += RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> > + tm->tm_mon--;
> > + rtc_tm_to_time(tm, &time);
> rtc_tm_to_time is deprecated, better use rtc_tm_to_time64.
OK, will change to rtc_tm_to_time64
>
> > + tm->tm_wday = (time / 86400 + 4) % 7;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mtk_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> > +{
> > + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +
> > + tm->tm_year -= RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> > + tm->tm_mon++;
> > + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_YEA, tm->tm_year);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_MTH, tm->tm_mon);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_DOM, tm->tm_mday);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_HOU, tm->tm_hour);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_MIN, tm->tm_min);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC, tm->tm_sec);
> Is this racy? I.e. what happens if RTC_TC_SEC overflows just before you
> write to it but after you wrote RTC_TC_MIN?
register value will write to hardware after rtc_write_trigger, so the
racy condition not exist.
>
> > + rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> > + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mtk_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alm)
> > +{
> > + struct rtc_time *tm = &alm->time;
> > + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + u16 irqen, pdn2;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > + irqen = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN);
> > + pdn2 = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_PDN2);
> > + tm->tm_sec = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_SEC);
> > + tm->tm_min = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_MIN);
> > + tm->tm_hour = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_HOU) & RTC_AL_HOU_MASK;
> > + tm->tm_mday = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_DOM) & RTC_AL_DOM_MASK;
> > + tm->tm_mon = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_MTH) & RTC_AL_MTH_MASK;
> > + tm->tm_year = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_YEA);
> > + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> > +
> > + alm->enabled = !!(irqen & RTC_IRQ_EN_AL);
> > + alm->pending = !!(pdn2 & RTC_PDN2_PWRON_ALARM);
> > +
> > + tm->tm_year += RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> > + tm->tm_mon--;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mtk_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alm)
> > +{
> > + struct rtc_time *tm = &alm->time;
> > + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + u16 irqen;
> > +
> > + tm->tm_year -= RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> > + tm->tm_mon++;
> > +
> > + if (alm->enabled) {
> > + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_YEA, tm->tm_year);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_MTH, (rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_MTH) &
> > + RTC_NEW_SPARE3) | tm->tm_mon);
> This looks strange. Why doesn't RTC_NEW_SPARE3 contain the register
> name? I would have expected:
>
> (rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_MTH) & ~RTC_AL_MTH_MASK) | tm->tm_mon;
I will remove RTC_NEW_SPARE3. Hardware will return 0 if register bit is
useless. So the bit clear is redundant.
>
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_DOM, (rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_DOM) &
> > + RTC_NEW_SPARE1) | tm->tm_mday);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_HOU, (rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_HOU) &
> > + RTC_NEW_SPARE_FG_MASK) | tm->tm_hour);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_MIN, tm->tm_min);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_SEC, tm->tm_sec);
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_MASK, RTC_AL_MASK_DOW);
> Is this racy? I.e. if the previous set alarm is
>
> 2015-03-13 14:15:00
>
> and you write
>
> 2015-03.14 17:17:00
>
> is it possible that this triggers an alarm if the update happens at
>
> 2015-03-14 14:15:00
>
> ?
>
All rtc register value write to RTC hardware after rtc_write_trigger.
Race condition should not happen.
> > + rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> > + irqen = rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN) | RTC_IRQ_EN_ONESHOT_AL;
> > + rtc_write(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, irqen);
> > + rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> > + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> } else {
> /* disable alarm here */
>
OK, should clear RTC_IRQ_EN
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct rtc_class_ops mtk_rtc_ops = {
> > + .read_time = mtk_rtc_read_time,
> > + .set_time = mtk_rtc_set_time,
> > + .read_alarm = mtk_rtc_read_alarm,
> > + .set_alarm = mtk_rtc_set_alarm,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int mtk_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct mt6397_chip *mt6397_chip = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc;
> > + u32 reg[2];
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + rtc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct mt6397_rtc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!rtc)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(pdev->dev.of_node, "reg", reg, 2);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "couldn't read rtc base address!\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + rtc->addr_base = reg[0];
> > + rtc->addr_range = reg[1];
> This looks strange, but maybe that's right as you reuse the parent's
> regmap.
According Sascha and Mark Brown's discussion:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-February/323239.html
Address and interrupt will move from device tree to mfd_cell in
mt6397-core.c
>
> > + rtc->regmap = mt6397_chip->regmap;
> > + rtc->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + mutex_init(&rtc->lock);
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc);
> > +
> > + rtc->rtc_dev = rtc_device_register("mt6397-rtc", &pdev->dev,
> > + &mtk_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
> > + if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "register rtc device failed\n");
> > + return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
> > + }
> > +
> > + rtc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > + if (rtc->irq < 0) {
> platform_get_irq(pdev, 0) = 0 should be treated as error, too.
OK, will fix it
>
> > + ret = rtc->irq;
> > + goto out_rtc;
> > + }
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
--
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