| 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: <CAAVeFuJykGNGj95r4P8vatxOA_yjsP1eQkDf9zS-dYV1piHTJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:36:45 +0900
From: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/4] gpio: tegra: Add support for gpio debounce
Sorry, just realized I commented on v3...
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com> wrote:
> NVIDIA's Tegra210 support the HW debounce in the GPIO controller
> for all its GPIO pins.
>
> Add support for setting debounce timing by implementing the
> set_debounce callback of gpiochip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
>
> ---
> Changes from V1:
> - Write debounce count before enable.
> - Make sure the debounce count do not have any boot residuals.
>
> Changes from V2:
> - Only access register for debounce when SoC support debounce.
>
> Changes from V3:
> - Add locking mechanism in debounce count register update.
> - Move DBC register from prev patch to here.
>
> drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra.c
> index 6af5eb2..45d80ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tegra.c
> @@ -46,10 +46,13 @@
> #define GPIO_INT_ENB(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + 0x50)
> #define GPIO_INT_LVL(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + 0x60)
> #define GPIO_INT_CLR(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + 0x70)
> +#define GPIO_DBC_CNT(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + 0xF0)
> +
>
> #define GPIO_MSK_CNF(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0x00)
> #define GPIO_MSK_OE(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0x10)
> #define GPIO_MSK_OUT(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0X20)
> +#define GPIO_MSK_DBC_EN(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0x30)
> #define GPIO_MSK_INT_STA(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0x40)
> #define GPIO_MSK_INT_ENB(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0x50)
> #define GPIO_MSK_INT_LVL(t, x) (GPIO_REG(t, x) + t->soc->upper_offset + 0x60)
> @@ -67,6 +70,7 @@ struct tegra_gpio_bank {
> int bank;
> int irq;
> spinlock_t lvl_lock[4];
> + spinlock_t dbc_lock[4]; /* Lock for updating debounce count register */
I'm nit'ing here, but maybe one spinlock shared by all ports would be
enough? (the same would apply to lvl_lock, so feel free to do this as
a separate patch) I don't think we expect *that* many concurrent
accesses, do we?
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> u32 cnf[4];
> u32 out[4];
> @@ -74,11 +78,14 @@ struct tegra_gpio_bank {
> u32 int_enb[4];
> u32 int_lvl[4];
> u32 wake_enb[4];
> + u32 dbc_enb[4];
> #endif
> + u32 dbc_cnt[4];
> struct tegra_gpio_info *tgi;
> };
>
> struct tegra_gpio_soc_config {
> + bool debounce_supported;
> u32 bank_stride;
> u32 upper_offset;
> };
> @@ -182,6 +189,38 @@ static int tegra_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int tegra_gpio_set_debounce(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
> + unsigned int debounce)
> +{
> + struct tegra_gpio_info *tgi = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> + unsigned int debounce_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP(debounce, 1000);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int port = GPIO_PORT(offset);
> + int bank = GPIO_BANK(offset);
Maybe declare "bank" as follows:
struct tegra_gpio_bank *bank = &tgi->bank_info[GPIO_BANK(offset)];
This will allow you to simplify the code that follows:
> +
> + if (!debounce_ms) {
> + tegra_gpio_mask_write(tgi, GPIO_MSK_DBC_EN(tgi, offset),
> + offset, 0);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + debounce_ms = min(debounce_ms, 255U);
> +
> + /* There is only one debounce count register per port and hence
> + * set the maximum of current and requested debounce time.
> + */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tgi->bank_info[bank].dbc_lock[port], flags);
> + if (tgi->bank_info[bank].dbc_cnt[port] < debounce_ms) {
> + tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, debounce_ms, GPIO_DBC_CNT(tgi, offset));
> + tgi->bank_info[bank].dbc_cnt[port] = debounce_ms;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tgi->bank_info[bank].dbc_lock[port], flags);
Becomes:
spin_lock_irqsave(bank->dbc_lock[port], flags);
if (bank->dbc_cnt[port] < debounce_ms) {
tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, debounce_ms, GPIO_DBC_CNT(tgi, offset));
bank->dbc_cnt[port] = debounce_ms;
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->dbc_lock[port], flags);
Which is nicer to the eyes.
Extra points if you initialize port and bank after we ensure that
debounce_ms is not zero and that their value will actually be used.
> +
> + tegra_gpio_mask_write(tgi, GPIO_MSK_DBC_EN(tgi, offset), offset, 1);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int tegra_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> {
> struct tegra_gpio_info *tgi = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> @@ -197,6 +236,7 @@ static struct gpio_chip tegra_gpio_chip = {
> .get = tegra_gpio_get,
> .direction_output = tegra_gpio_direction_output,
> .set = tegra_gpio_set,
> + .set_debounce = tegra_gpio_set_debounce,
> .to_irq = tegra_gpio_to_irq,
> .base = 0,
> };
> @@ -360,6 +400,14 @@ static int tegra_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> unsigned int gpio = (b<<5) | (p<<3);
> tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, bank->cnf[p],
> GPIO_CNF(tgi, gpio));
> +
> + if (tgi->soc->debounce_supported) {
> + tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, bank->dbc_cnt[p],
> + GPIO_DBC_CNT(tgi, gpio));
> + tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, bank->dbc_enb[p],
> + GPIO_MSK_DBC_EN(tgi, gpio));
> + }
> +
> tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, bank->out[p],
> GPIO_OUT(tgi, gpio));
> tegra_gpio_writel(tgi, bank->oe[p],
> @@ -395,6 +443,13 @@ static int tegra_gpio_suspend(struct device *dev)
> GPIO_OUT(tgi, gpio));
> bank->oe[p] = tegra_gpio_readl(tgi,
> GPIO_OE(tgi, gpio));
> + if (tgi->soc->debounce_supported) {
> + bank->dbc_enb[p] = tegra_gpio_readl(tgi,
> + GPIO_MSK_DBC_EN(tgi, gpio));
> + bank->dbc_enb[p] = (bank->dbc_enb[p] << 8) |
> + bank->dbc_enb[p];
> + }
> +
> bank->int_enb[p] = tegra_gpio_readl(tgi,
> GPIO_INT_ENB(tgi, gpio));
> bank->int_lvl[p] = tegra_gpio_readl(tgi,
> @@ -547,6 +602,9 @@ static int tegra_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, tgi);
>
> + if (!config->debounce_supported)
> + tgi->gc->set_debounce = NULL;
Yep, we really want one gpio_chip instance in the tegra_gpio_info
struct, otherwise this kind of limits the purpose of getting rid of
these global variables...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists