| 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: <aac61f46-f963-2631-00e0-2d62baac6bf4@axentia.se>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:20:14 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.infradead.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Peter Chen <Peter.Chen@....com>,
Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mux: Add mux_control_get_optional() API
Generally looks like I imagined, but there are a few nits and some
things that I'd like to do differently. Comments inline. Thanks!
On 2017-07-14 23:40, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Sometimes drivers only use muxes under certain scenarios. For
> example, the chipidea usb controller may be connected to a usb
> switch on some platforms, and connected directly to a usb port on
> others. The driver won't know one way or the other though, so add
> a mux_control_get_optional() API that allows the driver to
> differentiate errors getting the mux from there not being a mux
> for the driver to use at all.
>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
> Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt | 1 +
> drivers/mux/mux-core.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/linux/mux/consumer.h | 4 ++
> 3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt b/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt
> index 30e04f7a690d..4fdd3e63ff8b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt
> @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ MUX
> devm_mux_chip_alloc()
> devm_mux_chip_register()
> devm_mux_control_get()
> + devm_mux_control_get_optional()
>
> PER-CPU MEM
> devm_alloc_percpu()
> diff --git a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
> index 90b8995f07cb..a0e5bf16f02f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mux/mux-core.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_mux_chip_register);
> */
> unsigned int mux_control_states(struct mux_control *mux)
> {
> + if (!mux)
> + return 0;
> +
I don't think this is appropriate. For this function, it might be ok,
but...
> return mux->states;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_states);
> @@ -338,6 +341,9 @@ int mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, unsigned int state)
> {
> int ret;
>
> + if (!mux)
> + return 0;
> +
...here and for other cases below it's very odd to return "ok", when
-EINVAL or something seems much more appropriate. And if -EINVAL is
returned here, the benefit of returning fake values for anything
pretty much falls apart.
I simply don't like it, and prefer if the consumer code is arranged
to not call the mux functions when the optional get() does not find
the mux.
> ret = down_killable(&mux->lock);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> @@ -370,6 +376,9 @@ int mux_control_try_select(struct mux_control *mux, unsigned int state)
> {
> int ret;
>
> + if (!mux)
> + return 0;
> +
> if (down_trylock(&mux->lock))
> return -EBUSY;
>
> @@ -398,6 +407,9 @@ int mux_control_deselect(struct mux_control *mux)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> + if (!mux)
> + return 0;
> +
> if (mux->idle_state != MUX_IDLE_AS_IS &&
> mux->idle_state != mux->cached_state)
> ret = mux_control_set(mux, mux->idle_state);
> @@ -422,14 +434,8 @@ static struct mux_chip *of_find_mux_chip_by_node(struct device_node *np)
> return dev ? to_mux_chip(dev) : NULL;
> }
>
> -/**
> - * mux_control_get() - Get the mux-control for a device.
> - * @dev: The device that needs a mux-control.
> - * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-control.
> - *
> - * Return: A pointer to the mux-control, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
> - */
> -struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> +struct mux_control *
> +__mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name, bool optional)
> {
> struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> struct of_phandle_args args;
> @@ -441,6 +447,8 @@ struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> if (mux_name) {
> index = of_property_match_string(np, "mux-control-names",
> mux_name);
> + if (index == -EINVAL && optional)
> + return NULL;
What about -ENODATA? And if an optional mux is found here, but lookup
fails later in e.g. the of_parse_phandle_with_args call, then I think
an error should be returned. Because that seems like an indication that
DT specifies that there *should* be a mux, but then there isn't one.
> if (index < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "mux controller '%s' not found\n",
> mux_name);
> @@ -451,6 +459,8 @@ struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np,
> "mux-controls", "#mux-control-cells",
> index, &args);
> + if (ret == -ENOENT && optional)
> + return NULL;
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to get mux-control %s(%i)\n",
> np->full_name, mux_name ?: "", index);
> @@ -482,9 +492,35 @@ struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> get_device(&mux_chip->dev);
> return &mux_chip->mux[controller];
> }
> +
> +/**
> + * mux_control_get() - Get the mux-control for a device.
> + * @dev: The device that needs a mux-control.
> + * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-control.
> + *
> + * Return: A pointer to the mux-control, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
> + */
> +struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> +{
> + return __mux_control_get(dev, mux_name, false);
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_get);
>
> /**
> + * mux_control_get_optional() - Get the optional mux-control for a device.
> + * @dev: The device that needs a mux-control.
> + * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-control.
> + *
> + * Return: A pointer to the mux-control, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
You don't mention that NULL may be returned, or when.
> + */
> +struct mux_control *
> +mux_control_get_optional(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> +{
> + return __mux_control_get(dev, mux_name, true);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_get_optional);
> +
> +/**
> * mux_control_put() - Put away the mux-control for good.
> * @mux: The mux-control to put away.
> *
> @@ -492,7 +528,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_get);
> */
> void mux_control_put(struct mux_control *mux)
> {
> - put_device(&mux->chip->dev);
> + if (mux)
> + put_device(&mux->chip->dev);
Don't put it if you don't have it.
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_put);
>
> @@ -503,16 +540,8 @@ static void devm_mux_control_release(struct device *dev, void *res)
> mux_control_put(mux);
> }
>
> -/**
> - * devm_mux_control_get() - Get the mux-control for a device, with resource
> - * management.
> - * @dev: The device that needs a mux-control.
> - * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-control.
> - *
> - * Return: Pointer to the mux-control, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
> - */
> -struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
> - const char *mux_name)
> +static struct mux_control *
> +__devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name, bool optional)
> {
> struct mux_control **ptr, *mux;
>
> @@ -520,7 +549,7 @@ struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
> if (!ptr)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> - mux = mux_control_get(dev, mux_name);
> + mux = __mux_control_get(dev, mux_name, optional);
> if (IS_ERR(mux)) {
> devres_free(ptr);
> return mux;
> @@ -531,8 +560,37 @@ struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
>
> return mux;
> }
> +
> +/**
> + * devm_mux_control_get() - Get the mux-control for a device, with resource
> + * management.
> + * @dev: The device that needs a mux-control.
> + * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-control.
> + *
> + * Return: Pointer to the mux-control, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
> + */
> +struct mux_control *
> +devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> +{
> + return __devm_mux_control_get(dev, mux_name, false);
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_mux_control_get);
>
> +/**
> + * devm_mux_control_get_optional() - Get the optional mux-control for a device,
> + * with resource management.
> + * @dev: The device that needs a mux-control.
> + * @mux_name: The name identifying the mux-control.
> + *
> + * Return: Pointer to the mux-control, or an ERR_PTR with a negative errno.
You don't mention that NULL may be returned, or when.
Cheers,
Peter
> + */
> +struct mux_control *
> +devm_mux_control_get_optional(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
> +{
> + return __devm_mux_control_get(dev, mux_name, true);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_mux_control_get_optional);
> +
> /*
> * Using subsys_initcall instead of module_init here to try to ensure - for
> * the non-modular case - that the subsystem is initialized when mux consumers
> diff --git a/include/linux/mux/consumer.h b/include/linux/mux/consumer.h
> index 5577e1b773c4..5e2aa046f032 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mux/consumer.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mux/consumer.h
> @@ -24,9 +24,13 @@ int __must_check mux_control_try_select(struct mux_control *mux,
> int mux_control_deselect(struct mux_control *mux);
>
> struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name);
> +struct mux_control *mux_control_get_optional(struct device *dev,
> + const char *mux_name);
> void mux_control_put(struct mux_control *mux);
>
> struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
> const char *mux_name);
> +struct mux_control *devm_mux_control_get_optional(struct device *dev,
> + const char *mux_name);
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_MUX_CONSUMER_H */
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists