linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND 09/11] pwm: sti: Add PWM Capture call-back

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: <20160413152229.GC29509@ulmo.ba.sec>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:22:29 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...inux.com, maxime.coquelin@...com,
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, ajitpal.singh@...com
Subject: Re: [RESEND 09/11] pwm: sti: Add PWM Capture call-back

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:32:07PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > Once a PWM Capture has been initiated, the capture call
> > > enables a rising edge detection IRQ, then waits.  Once each
> > > of the 3 phase changes have been recorded the thread then
> > > wakes.  The remaining part of the call carries out the
> > > relevant calculations and passes back a formatted string to
> > > the caller.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c
> > > index 82a69e4..8de9b4a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sti.c
> > > @@ -309,7 +309,79 @@ static void sti_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > >  	clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, &pc->configured);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static int sti_pwm_capture(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > +			   int channel, char *buf)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct sti_pwm_chip *pc = to_sti_pwmchip(chip);
> > > +	struct sti_pwm_compat_data *cdata = pc->cdata;
> > > +	struct sti_cpt_data *d = pc->cpt_data[channel];
> > > +	struct device *dev = pc->dev;
> > > +	unsigned int f, dc;
> > > +	unsigned int high, low;
> > > +	bool level;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	if (channel > cdata->cpt_num_chan - 1) {
> > > +		dev_err(dev, "Channel %d is not valid\n", channel);
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&d->lock);
> > 
> > Should this perhaps reuse the struct pwm_device's ->lock?

That was actually a stupid suggestion by me, because that lock is being
removed in an unrelated patch series.

> > > +	/* Prepare capture measurement */
> > > +	d->index = 0;
> > > +	regmap_write(pc->regmap, PWM_CPT_EDGE(channel), CPT_EDGE_RISING);
> > > +	regmap_field_write(pc->pwm_cpt_int_en, BIT(channel));
> > > +	ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(d->wait, d->index > 1, HZ);
> > 
> > The timeout here should make sure callers don't hang forever. But maybe
> > you can still make sure that when the PWM gets disabled the wait queue
> > is woken and perhaps return an appropriate error code to let users know
> > that the operation was interrupted.
> 
> Sure.  I'll look into that.
> 
> > Also, how about letting callers choose the value of the timeout? In some
> > cases they may be interested in long-running signals. In other cases the
> > whole second timeout may be much too long.
> 
> I'm not opposed to it.  How do you suggest we do that?

The easiest would probably be to add an unsigned long timeout parameter
to the pwm_capture() function and ->capture() callbacks.

But thinking about this further I'm wondering if it might not be easier
and more flexible to move the timeout completely outside of this code
and into callers. I suspect that the most simple way to do that would be
to add a completion to struct pwm_capture that callers can use to wait
for completion of a capture. This would make the whole process
asynchronous and allow interesting things like making the sysfs capture
file pollable, for example.

> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * In case we woke up for another reason than completion
> > > +	 * make sure to disable the capture.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	regmap_write(pc->regmap, PWM_CPT_EDGE(channel), CPT_EDGE_DISABLED);
> > 
> > The comment here is slightly confusing because it implies that disabling
> > the capture should be done conditionally, whereas it is always disabled.
> 
> Not really.  We do it unconditionally for reason explained.
> 
> It says:
> 
>   "disable the capture just in case X happens"
> 
> rather than
> 
>   "disable the capture if X happens".
> 
> Perhaps the language is too subtle.  I can reword for clarity.

I'd be okay with just dropping the comment altogether, it seems rather
obvious to me. But clarifying is okay with me, too.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)