| 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: <20151031172839.GB25091@localhost>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:28:39 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: "mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com" <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Tirdea, Irina" <irina.tirdea@...el.com>,
Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>,
Aleksei Mamlin <mamlinav@...il.com>,
Karsten Merker <merker@...ian.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Purdila, Octavian" <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"Dolca, Robert" <robert.dolca@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/9] Input: goodix - reset device at init
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:33:28AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:52:39PM +0300, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:32:24PM +0000, Tirdea, Irina wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: linux-input-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-input-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com
> > > > Sent: 14 October, 2015 16:44
> > > > To: Dmitry Torokhov
> > > > Cc: Tirdea, Irina; Bastien Nocera; Aleksei Mamlin; Karsten Merker; linux-input@...r.kernel.org; Mark Rutland; Purdila, Octavian; linux-
> > > > kernel@...r.kernel.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/9] Input: goodix - reset device at init
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 02:18:20PM +0300, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:23:03PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > > I understand why one might use acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios() to augment
> > > > > > data in ACPI, however here we have completely different issue: driver
> > > > > > that expects named gpios gets returned gpio that has nothing to do with
> > > > > > what it requested, because gpiolib acpi code always falls back to
> > > > > > unnamed gpio if it does not find named gpio. That can be acceptable if
> > > > > > driver uses the same con_id for all requests to gpiolib, but is not
> > > > > > working when driver supplies different con_ids.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, the ACPI fallback ignores con_id completely and uses only the
> > > > > index.
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK there is only one driver using ACPI _CRS index method:
> > > > > sdhci-[acpi|pci].c. If we can convert that to use acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios()
> > > > > to feed names for card detection GPIOs, I think we can remove the
> > > > > fallback alltogether in favor of named GPIOs for ACPI.
> > > >
> > > > Nah, there seems to be several drivers relying on this already :-/
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to add an optional parameter to the GPIO API
> > > to specify whether we want to fall back to indexed GPIOs for ACPI?
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea to add ACPI specifics to generic APIs.
> >
> > I went through ACPI enabled drivers calling GPIO APIs and majority of
> > them are doing this:
> >
> > static int stk8312_gpio_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > {
> > struct device *dev;
> > struct gpio_desc *gpio;
> > int ret;
> >
> > if (!client)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > dev = &client->dev;
> >
> > /* data ready gpio interrupt pin */
> > gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(dev, STK8312_GPIO, 0, GPIOD_IN);
> > if (IS_ERR(gpio)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "acpi gpio get index failed\n");
> > return PTR_ERR(gpio);
> > }
> >
> > ret = gpiod_to_irq(gpio);
> > dev_dbg(dev, "GPIO resource, no:%d irq:%d\n", desc_to_gpio(gpio), ret);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > We can drop all this because I2C core already handles GpioInt -> interrupt
> > number translation.
> >
> > Few drivers are doing something more complex but I think we can still convert
> > them to use acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios() and eventually get rid of the whole
> > _CRS index lookup.
>
> cpi_dev_add_driver_gpios() does not really help with generic drivers
> (unless we keep adding more and more board specific data to them). How
> about we keep track of names used and only allow conversion for the
> first name used, like in the patch below?
>
> --
> Dmitry
>
> gpiolib: tighten up ACPI legacy gpio lookups
>
> From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
>
> We should not fall back to the legacy unnamed gpio lookup style if the
> driver requests gpios with different names, because we'll give out the same
> gpio twice. Let's keep track of the names that were used for the device and
> only do the fallback for the first name used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 5db3445..4ae5447 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1738,6 +1738,45 @@ static struct gpio_desc *of_find_gpio(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> return desc;
> }
>
> +struct acpi_gpio_lookup {
> + struct list_head node;
> + struct device *dev;
> + const char *con_id;
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_gpio_lookup_lock);
> +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_gpio_lookup_list);
> +
> +static bool acpi_can_fallback_crs(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> +{
> + struct acpi_gpio_lookup *l, *lookup = NULL;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&acpi_gpio_lookup_lock);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(l, &acpi_gpio_lookup_list, node) {
> + if (l->dev == dev) {
> + lookup = l;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (!lookup) {
> + lookup = kmalloc(sizeof(*lookup), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (lookup) {
> + lookup->dev = dev;
> + lookup->con_id = con_id;
> + list_add_tail(&lookup->node, &acpi_gpio_lookup_list);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&acpi_gpio_lookup_lock);
This should of course be mutex_unlock() according to the awesome 0-day
build bot.
> +
> + return lookup &&
> + ((!lookup->con_id && !con_id) ||
> + (lookup->con_id && con_id &&
> + strcmp(lookup->con_id, con_id) == 0));
> +}
> +
> static struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> unsigned int idx,
> enum gpio_lookup_flags *flags)
> @@ -1765,7 +1804,8 @@ static struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
>
> /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */
> if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> - desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, NULL, idx, &info);
> + if (acpi_can_fallback_crs(dev, con_id))
> + desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, NULL, idx, &info);
> if (IS_ERR(desc))
> return desc;
> }
--
Dmitry
--
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