| 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: <CAAFQd5ADCaKhP=3BmJsVimvo-uXZB3pobVAUST-b5kU+98Rt+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:41:25 +0900
From: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...gle.com>
To: Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
srv_heupstream@...iatek.com,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@...iatek.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Uwe Kleine-König <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] rtc: mediatek: Add MT6397 RTC driver
Hi Eddie,
Please see my comments inline.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com> wrote:
> From: Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@...iatek.com>
>
> Add Mediatek MT6397 RTC driver
[snip]
> +#define RTC_BBPU 0x0000
> +#define RTC_WRTGR 0x003c
> +#define RTC_IRQ_EN 0x0004
> +#define RTC_IRQ_STA 0x0002
> +
> +#define RTC_BBPU_CBUSY (1 << 6)
> +#define RTC_IRQ_STA_AL (1 << 0)
> +#define RTC_IRQ_STA_LP (1 << 3)
nit: Could you use BIT() macro for definitions of single bits? (+
further occurrences in the patch)
> +
> +#define RTC_AL_MASK 0x0008
> +#define RTC_TC_SEC 0x000a
> +#define RTC_TC_MIN 0x000c
> +#define RTC_TC_HOU 0x000e
> +#define RTC_TC_DOM 0x0010
> +#define RTC_TC_MTH 0x0014
> +#define RTC_TC_YEA 0x0016
> +#define RTC_AL_SEC 0x0018
> +#define RTC_AL_MIN 0x001a
[snip]
> +
> +static int mtk_rtc_read(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc, u32 offset, u32 *data)
> +{
> + u32 addr = rtc->addr_base + offset;
> +
> + if (offset < rtc->addr_range)
> + return regmap_read(rtc->regmap, addr, data);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static int mtk_rtc_write(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc, u32 offset, u32 data)
> +{
> + u32 addr;
> +
> + addr = rtc->addr_base + offset;
> +
> + if (offset < rtc->addr_range)
> + return regmap_write(rtc->regmap, addr, data);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
Do you actually need these wrappers? Could you use regmap_write() and
_read() directly? This would also enable you to use
regmap_update_bits() instead of implicit read, modify and write.
> +
> +static int mtk_rtc_write_trigger(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + u32 data;
> +
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_WRTGR, 1);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> +
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_BBPU, &data);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> +
> + while (data & RTC_BBPU_CBUSY) {
> + cpu_relax();
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_BBPU, &data);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + }
The initial read and the loop could be folded into a do {} while loop?
Also it would be safer to have a timeout here.
> +
> +exit:
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t mtk_rtc_irq_handler_thread(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = data;
> + u32 irqsta, irqen;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_STA, &irqsta);
> +
> + if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) {
> + rtc_update_irq(rtc->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
> + irqen = irqsta & ~RTC_IRQ_EN_AL;
> + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> + if (mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, irqen) < 0)
> + mtk_rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> +
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> + }
> +
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +}
> +
> +static int __mtk_rtc_read_time(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc,
> + struct rtc_time *tm, int *sec)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC, &tm->tm_sec);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_MIN, &tm->tm_min);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_HOU, &tm->tm_hour);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_DOM, &tm->tm_mday);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_MTH, &tm->tm_mon);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_YEA, &tm->tm_year);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC, sec);
Would the hardware allow this to be merged into single burst transfer
reading all the registers into a buffer, so then you could just copy
the values from that buffer into target struct instead of issuing
multiple reads one by one?
Also shouldn't the unused bits be masked out?
> +
> +exit:
> + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int mtk_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + time64_t time;
> + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int sec, ret;
> +
> + do {
> + ret = __mtk_rtc_read_time(rtc, tm, &sec);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + } while (sec < tm->tm_sec);
Shouldn't this be while (sec > tm->tm_sec)?
> +
> + tm->tm_year += RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> + tm->tm_mon--;
Could you add a comment explaining why this is decremented?
> + time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
> +
> + tm->tm_wday = (time / 86400 + 4) % 7;
Could you add a comment, or even better, an inline function with a
comment, explaining this calculation?
> +
> +exit:
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int mtk_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + tm->tm_year -= RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> + tm->tm_mon++;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_YEA, tm->tm_year);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_MTH, tm->tm_mon);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_DOM, tm->tm_mday);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_HOU, tm->tm_hour);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_MIN, tm->tm_min);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_TC_SEC, tm->tm_sec);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> +
> +exit:
> + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +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);
> + u32 irqen, pdn2;
> + int ret;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, &irqen);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_PDN2, &pdn2);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_SEC, &tm->tm_sec);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_MIN, &tm->tm_min);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_HOU, &tm->tm_hour);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_DOM, &tm->tm_mday);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_MTH, &tm->tm_mon);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_AL_YEA, &tm->tm_year);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_exit;
Similarly to _read_time(), could this be changed into a single burst read?
> +
> + alm->enabled = !!(irqen & RTC_IRQ_EN_AL);
> + alm->pending = !!(pdn2 & RTC_PDN2_PWRON_ALARM);
> + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> +
> + tm->tm_year += RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> + tm->tm_mon--;
> +
> + return 0;
> +err_exit:
> + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +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);
> + u32 irqen;
> + int ret;
> +
> + tm->tm_year -= RTC_MIN_YEAR_OFFSET;
> + tm->tm_mon++;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rtc->lock);
> + if (alm->enabled) {
Is this possible that an alarm was already set? Is it okay to keep it
enabled while changing the alarm time to new one?
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_YEA, tm->tm_year);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_MTH, tm->tm_mon);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_DOM, tm->tm_mday);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_HOU, tm->tm_hour);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_MIN, tm->tm_min);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_SEC, tm->tm_sec);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_AL_MASK, RTC_AL_MASK_DOW);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, &irqen);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + irqen |= RTC_IRQ_EN_ONESHOT_AL;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, irqen);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
regmap_update_bits() could be used instead of the read, modify and write above.
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write_trigger(rtc);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + } else {
> + ret = mtk_rtc_read(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, &irqen);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
> + irqen &= ~RTC_IRQ_EN_ONESHOT_AL;
> + ret = mtk_rtc_write(rtc, RTC_IRQ_EN, irqen);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto exit;
Ditto.
> + }
> +
> +exit:
> + mutex_unlock(&rtc->lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +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 resource *res;
> + struct mt6397_chip *mt6397_chip = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + rtc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct mt6397_rtc), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!rtc)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + rtc->addr_base = res->start;
> + rtc->addr_range = res->end - res->start;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
> + rtc->irq = irq_create_mapping(mt6397_chip->irq_domain, res->start);
> + if (rtc->irq <= 0)
> + goto out_rtc;
Just return an error code here directly. Which one is actually a good
question. Looks like existing code is using -EINVAL or -ENXIO. Any
ideas?
> +
> + rtc->regmap = mt6397_chip->regmap;
> + rtc->dev = &pdev->dev;q
> + mutex_init(&rtc->lock);
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc);
> +
> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc->irq, NULL,
> + mtk_rtc_irq_handler_thread,
> + IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH,
> + "mt6397-rtc", rtc);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request alarm IRQ: %d: %d\n",
> + rtc->irq, ret);
> + goto out_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);
> + }
> +
> + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +out_rtc:
> + rtc_device_unregister(rtc->rtc_dev);
All references to this label are actually before rtc_device_register()
is even called. The proper thing to do here is to dispose the created
IRQ mapping.
> + return ret;
> +
> +}
> +
> +static int mtk_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct mt6397_rtc *rtc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + rtc_device_unregister(rtc->rtc_dev);
What about the IRQ mapping created in probe?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists