linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: sunxi: Introduce the strict flag

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: <CAGb2v65xhXKB10r4BhmKra+XLrSq9GjGL+sUbRDqkb2Y=nsE4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2017 16:32:23 +0800
From:   Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: sunxi: Introduce the strict flag

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> Our pinctrl device should have had strict set all along. However, it wasn't
> the case, and most of our old device trees also have a pinctrl group in
> addition to the GPIOs properties, which mean that we can't really turn it
> on now.
>
> All our new SoCs don't have that group, so we should still enable that mode
> on the newer one though.
>
> In order to enable it by default, add a flag that will allow to disable
> that mode that should be set by pinctrl drivers that cannot be migrated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c | 5 ++++-
>  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> index 52edf3b5988d..1753a5b1573f 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> @@ -690,7 +690,7 @@ sunxi_pmx_gpio_set_direction(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static const struct pinmux_ops sunxi_pmx_ops = {
> +static struct pinmux_ops sunxi_pmx_ops = {
>         .get_functions_count    = sunxi_pmx_get_funcs_cnt,
>         .get_function_name      = sunxi_pmx_get_func_name,
>         .get_function_groups    = sunxi_pmx_get_func_groups,
> @@ -1307,6 +1307,9 @@ int sunxi_pinctrl_init_with_variant(struct platform_device *pdev,
>         pctrl_desc->pctlops = &sunxi_pctrl_ops;
>         pctrl_desc->pmxops =  &sunxi_pmx_ops;
>
> +       if (desc->disable_strict_mode)
> +               sunxi_pmx_ops.strict = false;

This is a bad idea. We have two pinctrl instances sharing the
same ops structure for later SoCs (the normal PIO and R_PIO).
What if they don't match? It would be better to make a copy,
(preferably) at runtime, or statically.

ChenYu

> +
>         pctl->pctl_dev = devm_pinctrl_register(&pdev->dev, pctrl_desc, pctl);
>         if (IS_ERR(pctl->pctl_dev)) {
>                 dev_err(&pdev->dev, "couldn't register pinctrl driver\n");
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h
> index 1bfc0d8a55df..11b128f54ed2 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h
> @@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ struct sunxi_pinctrl_desc {
>         unsigned                        irq_banks;
>         unsigned                        irq_bank_base;
>         bool                            irq_read_needs_mux;
> +       bool                            disable_strict_mode;
>  };
>
>  struct sunxi_pinctrl_function {
> --
> git-series 0.9.1