| 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: <cf157e9f-a4cb-6d7d-f51d-8b9d91f3335c@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:55:38 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Andy Tang <andy.tang@....com>,
"rui.zhang@...el.com" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: "edubezval@...il.com" <edubezval@...il.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: qoriq: add multiple sensors support
On 15/10/2018 03:41, Andy Tang wrote:
> Thanks Daniel,
>
> Please see my reply inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>> Sent: 2018年10月14日 4:43
>> To: Andy Tang <andy.tang@....com>; rui.zhang@...el.com
>> Cc: edubezval@...il.com; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org;
>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: qoriq: add multiple sensors support
>>
>>
>> Hi Yuantian,
>>
>>
>> On 27/09/2018 04:42, andy.tang@....com wrote:
>>> From: Yuantian Tang <andy.tang@....com>
>>>
>>> There is only one sensor supported in current driver.
>>> Multiple sensors are existing on Layscape socs. To support them,
>>> covert this driver to support multiple sensors.
>>
>> s/covert/convert/
>>
>> What about the following changelog ?
>>
>> "
>> The QorIQ Layerscape SoC has several thermal sensors but the current
>> driver only supports one.
>>
>> Massage the code to be sensor oriented and allow the support for
>> multiple sensors.
>> "
> [Andy] Thanks, will update
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tang Yuantian <andy.tang@....com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c | 117
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>> 1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c
>>> b/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c index c866cc1..7c1e88a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c
>>> @@ -69,14 +69,21 @@ struct qoriq_tmu_regs {
>>> u32 ttr3cr; /* Temperature Range 3 Control Register */
>>> };
>>>
>>> +struct qoriq_tmu_data;
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Thermal zone data
>>> */
>>> +struct qoriq_sensor {
>>> + struct thermal_zone_device *tzd;
>>> + struct qoriq_tmu_data *qdata;
>>> + int id;
>>> +};
>>
>> Can you move the qoriq_tmu_site_regs structure content inside the
>> qoriq_sensor structure and kill the 'sites' field in the qoriq_tmu_regs
>> structure ? Otherwise we end up with a SITES_MAX array in the
>> qoriq_tmu_data structure and another one in the qoriq_tmu_regs
>> structure.
> [Andy] I am afraid I can't.
> qoriq_tmu_site_regs structure is to define the registers. After iomap, TMU can be accessed.
> qoriq_sensor structure is used for each sensor. It DONOT include the register defines.
> qoriq_tmu_data structure is used for global TMU date.
> So there is no any duplicated or redundant data here.
It is not about duplicate but just code reorg.
This patch changes the structure as:
struct qoriq_tmu_data {
- struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
struct qoriq_tmu_regs __iomem *regs;
- int sensor_id;
bool little_endian;
+ struct qoriq_sensor *sensor[SITES_MAX];
};
So we have:
struct qoriq_tmu_data
=> struct qoriq_sensor[SITES_MAX]
=> struct qoriq_tmu_regs
=> struct qoriq_tmu_site_regs[SITES_MAX]
I'm proposing to move struct qoriq_tmu_site_regs inside the struct
qoriq_sensor.
We end up with:
struct qoriq_sensor {
struct thermal_zone_device *tzd;
struct struct qoriq_tmu_site_regs *regs;
struct qoriq_tmu_data *qdata;
int id;
};
>>> - if (sensor_specs.args_count >= 1) {
>>> - id = sensor_specs.args[0];
>>> - WARN(sensor_specs.args_count > 1,
>>> - "%s: too many cells in sensor specifier %d\n",
>>> - sensor_specs.np->name, sensor_specs.args_count);
>>> - } else {
>>> - id = 0;
>>> + if (id > SITES_MAX)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + qdata->sensor[id] = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>> + sizeof(struct qoriq_sensor), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!qdata->sensor[id])
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + qdata->sensor[id]->id = id;
>>> + qdata->sensor[id]->qdata = qdata;
>>> +
>>> + qdata->sensor[id]->tzd =
>> devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(
>>> + &pdev->dev, id, qdata->sensor[id], &tmu_tz_ops);
>>> +
>>> + if (IS_ERR(qdata->sensor[id]->tzd)) {
>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(qdata->sensor[id]->tzd);
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>>> + "Failed to register thermal zone device.\n");
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + sites |= 0x1 << (15 - id);
>>
>> The current code is reading the DT in order to get the sensor id and
>> initialize it. IOW, the DT gives the sensors to use.
>>
>> IMO, it would be more self contained if the driver initializes all the sensors
>> without taking care of the DT and let the of- code to do the binding when
>> the thermal zone, no ?
> [Andy] could you please explain more about this way? I am not sure how to implement it.
> But one thing is for sure: we must get the sensor IDs explicitly so that we can enable them by
> the following command: tmu_write(qdata, sites | TMR_ME | TMR_ALPF, &qdata->regs->tmr);
What I meant is about code separation between the driver itself and the
of-thermal code.
The code above re-inspect the DT to find out the sensor ids in order to
enable them and somehow this is not wrong but breaks the self
encapsulation of the driver. I was suggesting if it isn't possible to
enable all the sensors without taking care of digging into the DT.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists