| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:02:51 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Dr . H . Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] serdev: Introduce new bus for serial attached
devices
On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 10:26 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> The serdev bus is designed for devices such as Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS
> and NFC connected to UARTs on host processors. Tradionally these have
> been handled with tty line disciplines, rfkill, and userspace glue
> such
> as hciattach. This approach has many drawbacks since it doesn't fit
> into the Linux driver model. Handling of sideband signals, power
> control
> and firmware loading are the main issues.
>
> This creates a serdev bus with controllers (i.e. host serial ports)
> and
> attached devices. Typically, these are point to point connections, but
> some devices have muxing protocols or a h/w mux is conceivable. Any
> muxing is not yet supported with the serdev bus.
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@
>
> +
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/idr.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/serdev.h>
Alphabetical order?
> +
> +static bool is_registered;
> +static DEFINE_IDA(ctrl_ida);
> +
> +static void serdev_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct serdev_device *serdev = to_serdev_device(dev);
> + kfree(serdev);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct device_type serdev_device_type = {
> + .release = serdev_device_release,
> +};
> +
> +static void serdev_ctrl_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = to_serdev_controller(dev);
> + ida_simple_remove(&ctrl_ida, ctrl->nr);
> + kfree(ctrl);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct device_type serdev_ctrl_type = {
> + .release = serdev_ctrl_release,
> +};
> +
> +static int serdev_device_match(struct device *dev, struct
> device_driver *drv)
> +{
> + return of_driver_match_device(dev, drv);
> +}
> +
>
> +int serdev_device_open(struct serdev_device *serdev)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (!ctrl || !ctrl->ops->open)
> + return 0;
> +
> + return serdev->ctrl->ops->open(ctrl);
Perhaps just ctrl->...();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_open);
> +
> +void serdev_device_close(struct serdev_device *serdev)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (ctrl && ctrl->ops->close)
Perhaps same pattern
if (!ctrl || !ctrl->ops->close)
return;
> + serdev->ctrl->ops->close(ctrl);
Just ctrl->... ?
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_close);
> +
> +int serdev_device_write_buf(struct serdev_device *serdev,
> + const unsigned char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (!ctrl || !ctrl->ops->write_buf)
> + return 0;
> +
> + return serdev->ctrl->ops->write_buf(ctrl, buf, count);
Just ctrl->... ?
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_write_buf);
> +
> +void serdev_device_write_flush(struct serdev_device *serdev)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (ctrl && ctrl->ops->write_flush)
> + serdev->ctrl->ops->write_flush(ctrl);
Both comments.
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_write_flush);
> +
> +int serdev_device_write_room(struct serdev_device *serdev)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (ctrl && ctrl->ops->write_room)
> + return serdev->ctrl->ops->write_room(ctrl);
> +
Ditto.
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_write_room);
> +
> +unsigned int serdev_device_set_baudrate(struct serdev_device *serdev,
> unsigned int speed)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (!ctrl || !ctrl->ops->set_baudrate)
> + return 0;
> +
> + return serdev->ctrl->ops->set_baudrate(ctrl, speed);
ctrl->...
> +
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_set_baudrate);
> +
> +void serdev_device_set_flow_control(struct serdev_device *serdev,
> bool enable)
> +{
> + struct serdev_controller *ctrl = serdev->ctrl;
> +
> + if (ctrl && ctrl->ops->set_flow_control)
> + serdev->ctrl->ops->set_flow_control(ctrl, enable);
Both comments.
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serdev_device_set_flow_control);
> +
> +static int of_serdev_register_devices(struct serdev_controller *ctrl)
> +{
> + struct device_node *node;
> + struct serdev_device *serdev = NULL;
> + int err;
> + bool found = false;
> +
> + for_each_available_child_of_node(ctrl->dev.of_node, node) {
> + if (!of_get_property(node, "compatible", NULL))
> + continue;
> +
> + dev_dbg(&ctrl->dev, "adding child %s\n", node-
> >full_name);
> +
> + serdev = serdev_device_alloc(ctrl);
> + if (!serdev)
> + continue;
> +
> + serdev->dev.of_node = node;
> +
> + err = serdev_device_add(serdev);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&serdev->dev,
> + "failure adding device. status %d\n",
> err);
> + serdev_device_put(serdev);
> + }
>
> + found = true;
Perhaps
} else if (!found)
found = true;
Otherwise if we end up with all devices not being added, called will not
know about it.
> + }
> + if (!found)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
+/**
> + * serdev_controller_remove(): remove an serdev controller
> + * @ctrl: controller to remove
> + *
> + * Remove a serdev controller. Caller is responsible for calling
> + * serdev_controller_put() to discard the allocated controller.
> + */
> +void serdev_controller_remove(struct serdev_controller *ctrl)
> +{
> + int dummy;
> +
>
> + if (!ctrl)
> + return;
By the way, should we take care or caller? What is the best practice
here?
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
>
> +static inline void serdev_controller_write_wakeup(struct
> serdev_controller *ctrl)
> +{
> + if (ctrl->serdev && ctrl->serdev->ops->write_wakeup)
> + ctrl->serdev->ops->write_wakeup(ctrl->serdev);
Same comment about pattern.
> +}
> +
> +static inline int serdev_controller_receive_buf(struct
> serdev_controller *ctrl,
> + const unsigned char
> *data,
> + size_t count)
> +{
> + if (ctrl->serdev && ctrl->serdev->ops->receive_buf)
> + return ctrl->serdev->ops->receive_buf(ctrl->serdev,
> data, count);
Ditto.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists