| 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: <CAFHUOYz2UvKKDPXBia_fZjTYEPdw7XuCEjM=C5Zzjj5LtQ=SXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:23:46 -0700
From: Hoan Tran <hotran@....com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Loc Ho <lho@....com>,
Khuong Dinh <kdinh@....com>, patches <patches@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hwmon: xgene: Support hwmon v2
Hi Guenter,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 05:10 PM, Hoan Tran wrote:
>>
>> This patch supports xgene-hwmon v2 which uses the non-cachable memory
>> as the PCC shared memory.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hoan Tran <hotran@....com>
>> ---
>>
>> v2
>> - Map PCC shared mem by ioremap() in case hwmon is v2
>>
>
> So I assume you expect me to replace the (already accepted) v1
> of this patch with this one ?
Yes, it's intended to replace the v1.
>
> Assuming the change is needed, I really have to ask: Has this version
> of the patch been tested ?
Yes
>
>
>> drivers/hwmon/xgene-hwmon.c | 52
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/xgene-hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/xgene-hwmon.c
>> index 9c0dbb8..52be7cd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/xgene-hwmon.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/xgene-hwmon.c
>> @@ -91,6 +91,11 @@
>> #define to_xgene_hwmon_dev(cl) \
>> container_of(cl, struct xgene_hwmon_dev, mbox_client)
>> +enum xgene_hwmon_version {
>> + XGENE_HWMON_V1 = 0,
>> + XGENE_HWMON_V2 = 1,
>> +};
>> +
>> struct slimpro_resp_msg {
>> u32 msg;
>> u32 param1;
>> @@ -99,6 +104,7 @@ struct slimpro_resp_msg {
>> struct xgene_hwmon_dev {
>> struct device *dev;
>> + int version;
>> struct mbox_chan *mbox_chan;
>> struct mbox_client mbox_client;
>> int mbox_idx;
>> @@ -135,6 +141,15 @@ static u16 xgene_word_tst_and_clr(u16 *addr, u16
>> mask)
>> return ret;
>> }
>> +static void *xgene_pcc_ioremap(struct xgene_hwmon_dev *ctx,
>> + phys_addr_t phys, size_t size)
>> +{
>> + if (ctx->version == XGENE_HWMON_V2)
>> + return (void __force *)ioremap(phys, size);
>> +
>
> Is that typecast really necessary ?
This typecast is used to prevent warning by sparse.
>
>
>> + return memremap(phys, size, MEMREMAP_WB);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int xgene_hwmon_pcc_rd(struct xgene_hwmon_dev *ctx, u32 *msg)
>> {
>> struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *generic_comm_base =
>> ctx->pcc_comm_addr;
>> @@ -609,6 +624,15 @@ static void xgene_hwmon_tx_done(struct mbox_client
>> *cl, void *msg, int ret)
>> }
>> }
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +static const struct acpi_device_id xgene_hwmon_acpi_match[] = {
>> + {"APMC0D29", XGENE_HWMON_V1},
>> + {"APMC0D8A", XGENE_HWMON_V2},
>> + {},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, xgene_hwmon_acpi_match);
>> +#endif
>> +
>> static int xgene_hwmon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct xgene_hwmon_dev *ctx;
>> @@ -623,6 +647,20 @@ static int xgene_hwmon_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ctx);
>> cl = &ctx->mbox_client;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> + ctx->version = -EINVAL;
>> + if (ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev)) {
>> + const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id;
>> +
>> + acpi_id = acpi_match_device(xgene_hwmon_acpi_match,
>> &pdev->dev);
>> + if (acpi_id)
>> + ctx->version = (int)acpi_id->driver_data;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (ctx->version < 0)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>
>
> This doesn't make sense. Just return EINVAL if acpi_id is 0 above. There
> is no need to assign a negative value to ctx->version.
>
> I also don't see why ctx->version is necessary in the first place. In
> reality
> it is just a parameter to xgene_pcc_ioremap(). Which I think should be
> inline
> and not a separate function.
Yes, let me move version variable into prove() function and use inline calls.
>
>> +#endif
>
>
> What if ACPI is enabled in the build but the system is running on HW which
> does not support ACPI ? Is that guaranteed to never happen ? Why not use
> acpi_disabled instead ?
It's because xgene_hwmon_acpi_match is only available with
CONFIG_ACPI. I'll move this logic into acpi_disabled below right
before parsing the PCC channel information.
>
>> +
>> spin_lock_init(&ctx->kfifo_lock);
>> mutex_init(&ctx->rd_mutex);
>> @@ -690,9 +728,9 @@ static int xgene_hwmon_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> */
>> ctx->comm_base_addr = cppc_ss->base_address;
>> if (ctx->comm_base_addr) {
>> - ctx->pcc_comm_addr = memremap(ctx->comm_base_addr,
>> - cppc_ss->length,
>> - MEMREMAP_WB);
>> + ctx->pcc_comm_addr = xgene_pcc_ioremap(ctx,
>> + ctx->comm_base_addr,
>> + cppc_ss->length);
>
>
> Inline, please. The extra function adds more complexity than it is worth.
Yes,
Thanks for your comments!
Hoan
>
>
>> } else {
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get PCC comm
>> region\n");
>> rc = -ENODEV;
>> @@ -758,14 +796,6 @@ static int xgene_hwmon_remove(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> -static const struct acpi_device_id xgene_hwmon_acpi_match[] = {
>> - {"APMC0D29", 0},
>> - {},
>> -};
>> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, xgene_hwmon_acpi_match);
>> -#endif
>> -
>> static const struct of_device_id xgene_hwmon_of_match[] = {
>> {.compatible = "apm,xgene-slimpro-hwmon"},
>> {}
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists