| 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: <1e457bb5-a493-fb13-0dd2-efa0b019a8d2@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:58:12 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>
Cc: platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan <sathyaosid@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] mux: core: Add support for getting a mux controller
on a non DT platform
Hi,
On 04-09-17 13:19, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Some comments inline...
>
> On 2017-09-01 23:48, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On non DT platforms we cannot get the mux_chip by pnode. Other subsystems
>> (regulator, clock, pwm) have the same problem and solve this by allowing
>> platform / board-setup code to add entries to a lookup table and then use
>> this table to look things up.
>>
>> This commit adds support for getting a mux controller on a non DT platform
>> following this pattern. It is based on a simplified version of the pwm
>> subsys lookup code, the dev_id and mux_name parts of a lookup table entry
>> are mandatory in the mux-core implementation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mux/core.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> include/linux/mux/consumer.h | 11 +++++
>> 2 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mux/core.c b/drivers/mux/core.c
>> index 6142493c327b..8864cc745506 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mux/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mux/core.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,9 @@
>> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>
>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(mux_lookup_lock);
>> +static LIST_HEAD(mux_lookup_list);
>> +
>> /*
>> * The idle-as-is "state" is not an actual state that may be selected, it
>> * only implies that the state should not be changed. So, use that state
>> @@ -408,6 +411,23 @@ int mux_control_deselect(struct mux_control *mux)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_deselect);
>>
>> +static int parent_name_match(struct device *dev, const void *data)
>> +{
>> + const char *parent_name = dev_name(dev->parent);
>> + const char *name = data;
>> +
>> + return strcmp(parent_name, name) == 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct mux_chip *mux_chip_get_by_name(const char *name)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev;
>> +
>> + dev = class_find_device(&mux_class, NULL, name, parent_name_match);
>> +
>> + return dev ? to_mux_chip(dev) : NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int of_dev_node_match(struct device *dev, const void *data)
>> {
>> return dev->of_node == data;
>> @@ -479,6 +499,42 @@ static struct mux_control *of_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + * mux_add_table() - register PWM device consumers
>
> register mux controllers (because you are not registering consumers, right?
> someone is registering controllers so that they can be found by consumers?)
Actually what is being registered is a "consumer to mux-controller mapping",
I will update the kernel-doc comments to use that everywhere.
>
>> + * @table: array of consumers to register
>> + * @num: number of consumers in table
>
> controllers?
mappings :)
>> + */
>> +void mux_add_table(struct mux_lookup *table, size_t num)
>> +{
>> + mutex_lock(&mux_lookup_lock);
>> +
>> + while (num--) {
>> + list_add_tail(&table->list, &mux_lookup_list);
>> + table++;
>> + }
>
> I prefer
>
> for (; num--; table++)
> list_add_tail(&table->list, &mux_lookup_list);
Sure, works for me.
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&mux_lookup_lock);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_add_table);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * mux_remove_table() - unregister PWM device consumers
>
> unregister mux controllers(?)
>
>> + * @table: array of consumers to unregister
>> + * @num: number of consumers in table
>
> controllers?
>
>> + */
>> +void mux_remove_table(struct mux_lookup *table, size_t num)
>> +{
>> + mutex_lock(&mux_lookup_lock);
>> +
>> + while (num--) {
>> + list_del(&table->list);
>> + table++;
>> + }
>
> for() loop here as well.
Ack.
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&mux_lookup_lock);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_remove_table);
>> +
>> +/**
>> * 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.
>> @@ -487,11 +543,49 @@ static struct mux_control *of_mux_control_get(struct device *dev,
>> */
>> struct mux_control *mux_control_get(struct device *dev, const char *mux_name)
>> {
>> + struct mux_lookup *m, *chosen = NULL;
>> + const char *dev_id = dev_name(dev);
>> + struct mux_chip *mux_chip;
>> +
>> /* look up via DT first */
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node)
>> return of_mux_control_get(dev, mux_name);
>>
>> - return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> + /*
>> + * For non DT we look up the provider in the static table typically
>> + * provided by board setup code.
>> + *
>> + * If a match is found, the provider mux chip is looked up by name
>> + * and a mux-control is requested using the table provided index.
>> + */
>> + mutex_lock(&mux_lookup_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(m, &mux_lookup_list, list) {
>> + if (WARN_ON(!m->dev_id || !m->mux_name || !m->provider))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (strcmp(m->dev_id, dev_id) == 0 &&
>> + strcmp(m->mux_name, mux_name) == 0) {
>
> I want the below format (with ! instead of == 0 and the brace on the next line
> when the condition has a line break):
Ok, I think checkpatch is going to not like that "{" there, but
I'm fine with putting it there.
> if (!strcmp(m->dev_id, dev_id) &&
> !strcmp(m->mux_name, mux_name))
> {
>
>> + chosen = m;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&mux_lookup_lock);
>> +
>> + if (!chosen)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> +
>> + mux_chip = mux_chip_get_by_name(chosen->provider);
>> + if (!mux_chip)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
>> +
>> + if (chosen->index >= mux_chip->controllers) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Mux lookup table index out of bounds %u >= %u\n",
>> + chosen->index, mux_chip->controllers);
>> + put_device(&mux_chip->dev);
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return &mux_chip->mux[chosen->index];
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mux_control_get);
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mux/consumer.h b/include/linux/mux/consumer.h
>> index ea96d4c82be7..912dd48a3a5d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mux/consumer.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mux/consumer.h
>> @@ -18,6 +18,17 @@
>> struct device;
>> struct mux_control;
>>
>
> I want a kernel-doc comment here, describing the structure.
Ok.
>> +struct mux_lookup {
>> + struct list_head list;
>> + const char *provider;
>> + unsigned int index;
>> + const char *dev_id;
>> + const char *mux_name;
>> +};
>> +
>> +void mux_add_table(struct mux_lookup *table, size_t num);
>> +void mux_remove_table(struct mux_lookup *table, size_t num);
>> +
>
> I'm not sure if consumer.h is the right place for this, but it can
> be moved when I think of something better. Which I can't for the
> moment...
>
>> unsigned int mux_control_states(struct mux_control *mux);
>> int __must_check mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux,
>> unsigned int state);
>>
>
I will address all comments for v2 of series.
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists