| 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: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:22:12 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: winbond: add driver
Hi Maciej!
Thanks for your patch!
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero
<mail@...iej.szmigiero.name> wrote:
> This commit adds GPIO driver for Winbond Super I/Os.
>
> Currently, only W83627UHG model (also known as Nuvoton NCT6627UD) is
> supported but in the future a support for other Winbond models, too, can
> be added to the driver.
>
> A module parameter "gpios" sets a bitmask of GPIO ports to enable (bit 0 is
> GPIO1, bit 1 is GPIO2, etc.).
> One should be careful which ports one tinkers with since some might be
> managed by the firmware (for functions like powering on and off, sleeping,
> BIOS recovery, etc.) and some of GPIO port pins are physically shared with
> other devices included in the Super I/O chip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
As this is a ioport-based driver I'd like William Breathitt Gray to
help reviewing it. He knows this stuff.
Add a license tag at the top of the file like this:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
It is part of our new dance.
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>
Only:
#include <linux/driver.h>
> +static int gpiobase = -1; /* dynamic */
Don't make this configurable.
> +static uint8_t gpios;
> +static uint8_t ppgpios;
> +static uint8_t odgpios;
Just use u8 unless you can tell me why I have to
switch it everywhere. Use u8, u16, u32 everywhere in place
of these, change globally.
> +static bool pledgpio;
> +static bool beepgpio;
> +static bool i2cgpio;
> +
> +static int winbond_sio_enter(uint16_t base)
And u16 as argument.
> +static void winbond_sio_reg_bclear(uint16_t base, uint8_t reg, uint8_t bit)
> +{
> + uint8_t val;
> +
> + val = winbond_sio_reg_read(base, reg);
> + val &= ~BIT(bit);
> + winbond_sio_reg_write(base, reg, val);
This kind of construction make me feel like we should have
an ioport regmap. But no requirement for this driver.
> +struct winbond_gpio_info {
> + uint8_t dev;
> + uint8_t ioreg;
> + uint8_t invreg;
> + uint8_t datareg;
> +};
Add kerneldoc to this struct please.
> +static const struct winbond_gpio_info winbond_gpio_infos[6] = {
> + { .dev = WB_SIO_DEV_GPIO12, .ioreg = WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_IO1,
> + .invreg = WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_INV1,
> + .datareg = WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_DATA1 },
Please break these up a bit:
{
.dev = WB_SIO_DEV_GPIO12,
.ioreg = WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_IO1,
.invreg = WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_INV1,
.datareg = WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_DATA1,
},
> +/* returns whether changing a pin is allowed */
> +static bool winbond_gpio_get_info(unsigned int gpio_num,
> + const struct winbond_gpio_info **info)
> +{
> + bool allow_changing = true;
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(winbond_gpio_infos); i++) {
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(i)))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (gpio_num < 8)
> + break;
> +
> + gpio_num -= 8;
> + }
> +
Add a comment here explaining why we warn on this.
> + if (WARN_ON(i >= ARRAY_SIZE(winbond_gpio_infos)))
> + i = 0;
> +
> + *info = &winbond_gpio_infos[i];
> +
Add comment here explaining what is going on.
> + if (i == 1) {
> + if (gpio_num == 0 && !pledgpio)
> + allow_changing = false;
> + else if (gpio_num == 1 && !beepgpio)
> + allow_changing = false;
> + else if ((gpio_num == 5 || gpio_num == 6) && !i2cgpio)
> + allow_changing = false;
> + }
> +
> + return allow_changing;
> +}
(...)
> +static struct gpio_chip winbond_gpio_chip = {
> + .label = WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .can_sleep = true,
Why can this ioport driver sleep?
> +static int winbond_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + uint16_t *base = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + if (base == NULL)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
Add a comment explaining how the GPIO lines are detected here.
> + winbond_gpio_chip.ngpio = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
> + if (gpios & BIT(i))
> + winbond_gpio_chip.ngpio += 8;
> +
> + if (gpios & BIT(5))
> + winbond_gpio_chip.ngpio += 5;
> +
> + winbond_gpio_chip.base = gpiobase;
> + winbond_gpio_chip.parent = &pdev->dev;
> +
> + return devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &winbond_gpio_chip, base);
> +}
> +
> +static void winbond_gpio_warn_conflict(unsigned int idx, const char *otherdev)
> +{
> + pr_warn(WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME
> + ": enabled GPIO%u share pins with active %s\n", idx + 1,
> + otherdev);
> +}
I don't understand this otherdev business, is it pin multiplexing?
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_common(uint16_t base, unsigned int idx,
> + uint8_t dev, uint8_t enable_reg,
> + uint8_t enable_bit,
> + uint8_t output_reg,
> + uint8_t output_pp_bit)
> +{
> + winbond_sio_select_logical(base, dev);
> +
> + winbond_sio_reg_bset(base, enable_reg, enable_bit);
> +
> + if (ppgpios & BIT(idx))
> + winbond_sio_reg_bset(base, output_reg,
> + output_pp_bit);
> + else if (odgpios & BIT(idx))
> + winbond_sio_reg_bclear(base, output_reg,
> + output_pp_bit);
> + else
> + pr_notice(WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME ": GPIO%u pins are %s\n", idx + 1,
> + winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, output_reg,
> + output_pp_bit) ?
> + "push-pull" :
> + "open drain");
If your hardware supports open drain then implement .set_config() for
it in the gpio_chip so you can use the hardware open drain with the driver.
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_0(uint16_t base)
This is an awkward name for a function. Give it some semantically
reasonable name please.
winbond_gpio_configure_uartb()?
> +{
> + uint8_t val;
> +
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(0)))
> + return;
> +
> + winbond_sio_select_logical(base, WB_SIO_DEV_UARTB);
> + if (winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, WB_SIO_UARTB_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_UARTB_ENABLE_ON))
> + winbond_gpio_warn_conflict(0, "UARTB");
> +
> + val = winbond_sio_reg_read(base, WB_SIO_REG_GPIO1_MF);
> + if ((val & WB_SIO_REG_G1MF_FS) != WB_SIO_REG_G1MF_FS_GPIO1) {
> + pr_warn(WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME
> + ": GPIO1 pins were connected to something else (%.2x), fixing\n",
> + (unsigned int)val);
> +
> + val &= ~WB_SIO_REG_G1MF_FS;
> + val |= WB_SIO_REG_G1MF_FS_GPIO1;
> +
> + winbond_sio_reg_write(base, WB_SIO_REG_GPIO1_MF, val);
> + }
> +
> + winbond_gpio_configure_common(base, 0, WB_SIO_DEV_GPIO12,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO12_ENABLE_1,
> + WB_SIO_REG_GPIO1_MF,
> + WB_SIO_REG_G1MF_G1PP);
> +}
> +
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_1(uint16_t base)
Same here. 0, 1? I don't get it.
winbond_gpio_configure_i2cgpio()?
> +{
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(1)))
> + return;
> +
> + i2cgpio = !winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, WB_SIO_REG_I2C_PS,
> + WB_SIO_REG_I2CPS_I2CFS);
> + if (!i2cgpio)
> + pr_warn(WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME
> + ": disabling GPIO2.5 and GPIO2.6 as I2C is enabled\n");
> +
> + winbond_gpio_configure_common(base, 1, WB_SIO_DEV_GPIO12,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO12_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO12_ENABLE_2,
> + WB_SIO_REG_GPIO1_MF,
> + WB_SIO_REG_G1MF_G2PP);
> +}
> +
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_2(uint16_t base)
Etc.
> +{
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(2)))
> + return;
> +
> + winbond_sio_select_logical(base, WB_SIO_DEV_UARTC);
> + if (winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, WB_SIO_UARTC_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_UARTC_ENABLE_ON))
> + winbond_gpio_warn_conflict(2, "UARTC");
> +
> + winbond_gpio_configure_common(base, 2, WB_SIO_DEV_GPIO34,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO34_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO34_ENABLE_3,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OVTGPIO3456,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OG3456_G3PP);
> +}
> +
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_3(uint16_t base)
Etc.
> +{
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(3)))
> + return;
> +
> + winbond_sio_select_logical(base, WB_SIO_DEV_UARTD);
> + if (winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, WB_SIO_UARTD_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_UARTD_ENABLE_ON))
> + winbond_gpio_warn_conflict(3, "UARTD");
> +
> + winbond_gpio_configure_common(base, 3, WB_SIO_DEV_GPIO34,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO34_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_GPIO34_ENABLE_4,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OVTGPIO3456,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OG3456_G4PP);
> +}
> +
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_4(uint16_t base)
Etc.
We are starting to see code duplication. It needs to be made into
some kind of table.
> +{
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(4)))
> + return;
> +
> + winbond_sio_select_logical(base, WB_SIO_DEV_UARTE);
> + if (winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, WB_SIO_UARTE_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_UARTE_ENABLE_ON))
> + winbond_gpio_warn_conflict(4, "UARTE");
> +
> + winbond_gpio_configure_common(base, 4, WB_SIO_DEV_WDGPIO56,
> + WB_SIO_WDGPIO56_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_WDGPIO56_ENABLE_5,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OVTGPIO3456,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OG3456_G5PP);
> +}
> +
> +static void winbond_gpio_configure_5(uint16_t base)
Yeah... a table :)
> +{
> + if (!(gpios & BIT(5)))
> + return;
> +
> + if (winbond_sio_reg_btest(base, WB_SIO_REG_GLOBAL_OPT,
> + WB_SIO_REG_GO_ENFDC)) {
> + pr_warn(WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME
> + ": disabling GPIO6 as FDC is enabled\n");
> +
> + gpios &= ~BIT(5);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + winbond_gpio_configure_common(base, 5, WB_SIO_DEV_WDGPIO56,
> + WB_SIO_WDGPIO56_REG_ENABLE,
> + WB_SIO_WDGPIO56_ENABLE_6,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OVTGPIO3456,
> + WB_SIO_REG_OG3456_G6PP);
> +}
> +
> +static int winbond_gpio_configure(uint16_t base)
> +{
> + winbond_gpio_configure_0(base);
> + winbond_gpio_configure_1(base);
> + winbond_gpio_configure_2(base);
> + winbond_gpio_configure_3(base);
> + winbond_gpio_configure_4(base);
> + winbond_gpio_configure_5(base);
So figure out some way to not have 6 similar functions but parameterize
the functions somehow with some struct or so?
> + if (!(gpios & (BIT(5 + 1) - 1))) {
> + pr_err(WB_GPIO_DRIVER_NAME
> + ": please use 'gpios' module parameter to select some active GPIO ports to enable\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct platform_device *winbond_gpio_pdev;
Hm I guess this is needed with ISA devices.
> +static int winbond_gpio_init_one(uint16_t base)
One... GPIO device? Put in some more info in the function name.
> +module_param(gpiobase, int, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(gpiobase,
> + "number of the first GPIO to register. default is -1, that is, dynamically allocated.");
Drop this. We don't support hammering down the GPIO base.
Not anymore.
> +module_param(gpios, byte, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(gpios,
> + "bitmask of GPIO ports to enable (bit 0 - GPIO1, bit 1 - GPIO2, etc.");
> +
> +module_param(ppgpios, byte, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ppgpios,
> + "bitmask of GPIO ports to set to push-pull mode (bit 0 - GPIO1, bit 1 - GPIO2, etc.");
> +
> +module_param(odgpios, byte, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(odgpios,
> + "bitmask of GPIO ports to set to open drain mode (bit 0 - GPIO1, bit 1 - GPIO2, etc.");
> +
> +module_param(pledgpio, bool, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(pledgpio,
> + "enable changing value of GPIO2.0 bit (Power LED), default no.");
> +
> +module_param(beepgpio, bool, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(beepgpio,
> + "enable changing value of GPIO2.1 bit (BEEP), default no.");
This is an awful lot of module parameters.
Why do we need so many?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists