linux-kernel - Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <CB69F6F0-B40B-47D1-B175-8401F43288C5@goldelico.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:08:00 +0100
From:	"H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To:	Andrey Vostrikov <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 
	<gta04-owner@...delico.com>, tomeu@...euvizoso.net,
	NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>
Subject: Re: [Gta04-owner] [PATCH 0/4] UART slave device support - version 4

Hi Andrey,
ah that is fine to learn about another project that needs some solution (however it will look like).

Am 15.01.2016 um 16:43 schrieb Andrey Vostrikov <andrey.vostrikov@...entembedded.com>:

> Hi Nikolaus,
> 
> H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> And IMHO nobody has described that he/she needs a solution to model the*data*  relationship
>> for devices connected behind a tty port.
> 
> I am not sure if my case fits *data* relationship or not in this case. Some time ago I asked about state of your patches.
> In my case I have supervising microcontroller unit (MCU) that is connected to one of UARTs on SoC.
> 
> This MCU implements several functions that will be implemented as MFD driver:
> - watchdog and system reset
> - NVMEM EEPROM
> - HWMON sensors
> - Input/power button
> - and similar low level functions
> 
> So in my case DTS binding looks like:
> 
> &uart3 {
> 	mcu {
> 		line-speed = <baud rate>;
> 		watchdog {
> 			timeout = <ms>;
> 			...other params...
> 		};
> 		eeprom {
> 			#address-cells
> 			#size-cells
> 			cell1 : cell@1 {
> 				reg = <1 2>;
> 			};
> 			cell2 : cell@2 {
> 				reg = <2 1>;
> 			};
> 		};
> 		hwmon {
> 			sensors-list = "voltage", "current", etc...;
> 		}
> 	}
> }

With my proposal it would just become

/ {
	themcu: mcu {
		uart = <&uart3>;
		line-speed = <baud rate>;
		watchdog {
			timeout = <ms>;
			...other params...
		};
		eeprom {
			#address-cells
			#size-cells
			cell1 : cell@1 {
				reg = <1 2>;
			};
			cell2 : cell@2 {
				reg = <2 1>;
			};
		};
		hwmon {
			sensors-list = "voltage", "current", etc...;
		}
	}
};

Which is almost the same. Except that it allows to move your mcu node whereever you like and easily allows to change the interface to connect to a different device by

&themcu {
	uart = <&uart1>;
};

With the subnode style you would need some tricks to get the driver instance for uart3 disabled, although it is possible (everything is possible - just easier or more difficult).

> 
> This MCU receives commands and notifies MFD driver about events via UART protocol.
> It looks like not really a slave though, more like a partnership from data flow point of view.

Yes!. That is why I started to question the term "slave".

And yes, this is the second use case I am aware of: a device that just *uses" the UART to do its works and there is no /dev/tty involved.

> 
> There is no user space code involved in this case as whole interactions are between drivers (just a kick to open /dev/ttyXXX using sys_open, as there is no way to start probe on uart_slave bus and assign line discipline).

Exactly this is what we want to provide as API for the drivers by our patches to serial-core.c. 

We want to allow such a "partner" device to take a line-speed property e.g. from its DT node (or a 9600 constant as for our GPS chip) and ask the UART driver to set the required clocks. Or to get the driver notified that someone has opened the /dev/tty* etc. So make it possible to use some UART from another driver.

In the long run it should be possible to use the UART even if there is no /dev/tty client or interface in user-space but that is something not perfectly working (there is some initialization race in the tty/serial subsystem we have not yet understood).

As you see, I have a driver-specific standpoint (and not coming from user space).

Thanks for sharing this example.

BR,
Nikolaus