| 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: <55AD6412.9070205@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:11:46 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com,
mporter@...sulko.com, stefan.wahren@...e.com, wxt@...k-chips.com,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem
providers
On 07/20/2015 07:43 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..bde5528
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
>
> +
> +static int nvmem_add_cells(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
> + const struct nvmem_config *cfg)
> +{
> + struct nvmem_cell **cells;
> + const struct nvmem_cell_info *info = cfg->cells;
> + int i, rval;
> +
> + cells = kzalloc(sizeof(*cells) * cfg->ncells, GFP_KERNEL);
kcalloc?
> + if (!cells)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < cfg->ncells; i++) {
> + cells[i] = kzalloc(sizeof(**cells), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cells[i]) {
> + rval = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + rval = nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell(nvmem, &info[i], cells[i]);
> + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(rval)) {
> + kfree(cells[i]);
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + nvmem_cell_add(cells[i]);
> + }
> +
> + nvmem->ncells = cfg->ncells;
> + /* remove tmp array */
> + kfree(cells);
> +
> + return 0;
> +err:
> + while (--i)
> + nvmem_cell_drop(cells[i]);
> +
> + return rval;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * nvmem_register() - Register a nvmem device for given nvmem_config.
> + * Also creates an binary entry in /sys/bus/nvmem/devices/dev-name/nvmem
> + *
> + * @config: nvmem device configuration with which nvmem device is created.
> + *
> + * Return: Will be an ERR_PTR() on error or a valid pointer to nvmem_device
> + * on success.
> + */
> +
Why the newline?
> +struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct nvmem_config *config)
> +{
> + struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
> + struct device_node *np;
> + struct regmap *rm;
> + int rval;
> +
> + if (!config->dev)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + rm = dev_get_regmap(config->dev, NULL);
> + if (!rm) {
> + dev_err(config->dev, "Regmap not found\n");
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> + nvmem = kzalloc(sizeof(*nvmem), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!nvmem)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + nvmem->id = ida_simple_get(&nvmem_ida, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (nvmem->id < 0) {
> + kfree(nvmem);
> + return ERR_PTR(nvmem->id);
Oops, we already freed nvmem.
> + }
> +
> + nvmem->regmap = rm;
> + nvmem->owner = config->owner;
> + nvmem->stride = regmap_get_reg_stride(rm);
> + nvmem->word_size = regmap_get_val_bytes(rm);
> + nvmem->size = regmap_get_max_register(rm) + nvmem->stride;
> + nvmem->dev.type = &nvmem_provider_type;
> + nvmem->dev.bus = &nvmem_bus_type;
> + nvmem->dev.parent = config->dev;
> + np = config->dev->of_node;
> + nvmem->dev.of_node = np;
> + dev_set_name(&nvmem->dev, "%s%d",
> + config->name ? : "nvmem", config->id);
> +
> + nvmem->read_only = np ? of_property_read_bool(np, "read-only") : 0;
of_property_read_bool(NULL, ..) "does the right thing" and returns false
already.
> +
> + nvmem->read_only |= config->read_only;
> +
> + device_initialize(&nvmem->dev);
> +
> + dev_dbg(&nvmem->dev, "Registering nvmem device %s\n", config->name);
> +
> + rval = device_add(&nvmem->dev);
> + if (rval) {
> + ida_simple_remove(&nvmem_ida, nvmem->id);
> + kfree(nvmem);
> + return ERR_PTR(rval);
> + }
> +
> + if (device_create_bin_file(&nvmem->dev,
> + nvmem->read_only ? &bin_attr_ro_nvmem :
> + &bin_attr_rw_nvmem))
> + dev_warn(&nvmem->dev, "Failed to create sysfs binary file\n");
Why can't we have device_add() add the binary file attribute too?
> +
> + if (config->cells)
> + nvmem_add_cells(nvmem, config);
> +
> + return nvmem;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvmem_register);
> +
> +/**
> + * nvmem_unregister() - Unregister previously registered nvmem device
> + *
> + * @nvmem: Pointer to previously registered nvmem device.
> + *
> + * Return: Will be an negative on error or a zero on success.
> + */
> +int nvmem_unregister(struct nvmem_device *nvmem)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + if (nvmem->users) {
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
This lock doesn't seem to be doing anything in this patch? Perhaps it
should be added in the second patch where consumers start making it useful?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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