| 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: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:19:45 +0200
From: Hans Verkuil <hansverk@...co.com>
To: ektor5 <ek5.chimenti@...il.com>, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc: luca.pisani@...o.org, jose.abreu@...opsys.com, sean@...s.org,
sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com, jacopo@...ndi.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@...aro.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] media: add SECO cec driver
On 10/19/18 15:02, ektor5 wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:14:55AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Hi Ettore,
>>
>> Just a few small things and it is ready to go:
>>
>> On 10/17/2018 11:31 PM, ektor5 wrote:
>>> From: Ettore Chimenti <ek5.chimenti@...il.com>
>>>
>>> This patch adds support to the CEC device implemented with a STM32
>>> microcontroller in X86 SECO Boards, including UDOO X86.
>>>
>>> The communication is achieved via Braswell integrated SMBus
>>> (i2c-i801). The driver use direct access to the PCI addresses, due to
>>> the limitations of the specific driver in presence of ACPI calls.
>>>
>>> The basic functionalities are tested with success with cec-ctl and
>>> cec-compliance.
>>>
>>> Inspired by cros-ec-cec implementation, attaches to i915 driver
>>> cec-notifier.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ettore Chimenti <ek5.chimenti@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> MAINTAINERS | 6 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/Kconfig | 12 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/Makefile | 2 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/seco-cec/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/seco-cec/seco-cec.c | 699 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/media/platform/seco-cec/seco-cec.h | 130 ++++
>>> 6 files changed, 850 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/platform/seco-cec/Makefile
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/platform/seco-cec/seco-cec.c
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/platform/seco-cec/seco-cec.h
<snip>
>>> +static int secocec_adap_log_addr(struct cec_adapter *adap, u8 logical_addr)
>>> +{
>>> + u16 enable_val = 0;
>>> + int status;
>>
>> If logical_addr == CEC_LOG_ADDR_INVALID, then this function must not return
>> an error or the CEC framework will WARN about it.
>>
>>> +
>>> + /* Disable device */
>>> + status = smb_rd16(SECOCEC_ENABLE_REG_1, &enable_val);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + return status;
>>> +
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_ENABLE_REG_1,
>>> + enable_val & ~SECOCEC_ENABLE_REG_1_CEC);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + return status;
>>> +
>>> + /* Write logical address */
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_DEVICE_LA, logical_addr);
>>
>> So does writing CEC_LOG_ADDR_INVALID (0xff) invalidate all logical
>> addresses? I see no special code for that. If that is indeed the
>> case, then you should document this.
>
> The micro can have only one LA at a time.
>
> In the micro datasheet there isn't any reference to an invalid addr, so
> it shouldn't complain. It will just set LA = 0xf. Is this correct or it
> should disable the device instead?
Setting it to 0xf is OK, but you might want to write 'logical_addr & 0xf'
to the register with a note that CEC_LOG_ADDR_INVALID is mapped to the
'Unregistered' logical address.
>
>>
>>> + if (status)
>>> + return status;
>>> +
>>> + /* Re-enable device */
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_ENABLE_REG_1,
>>> + enable_val | SECOCEC_ENABLE_REG_1_CEC);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + return status;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int secocec_adap_transmit(struct cec_adapter *adap, u8 attempts,
>>> + u32 signal_free_time, struct cec_msg *msg)
>>> +{
>>> + struct secocec_data *cec = cec_get_drvdata(adap);
>>> + struct device *dev = cec->dev;
>>> + u16 payload_len, payload_id_len, destination, val = 0;
>>> + u8 *payload_msg;
>>> + int status;
>>> + u8 i;
>>> +
>>> + /* Device msg len already accounts for header */
>>> + payload_id_len = msg->len - 1;
>>> +
>>> + /* Send data length */
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_WRITE_DATA_LENGTH, payload_id_len);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + goto err;
>>> +
>>> + /* Send Operation ID if present */
>>> + if (payload_id_len > 0) {
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_WRITE_OPERATION_ID, msg->msg[1]);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + goto err;
>>> + }
>>> + /* Send data if present */
>>> + if (payload_id_len > 1) {
>>> + /* Only data; */
>>> + payload_len = msg->len - 2;
>>> + payload_msg = &msg->msg[2];
>>> +
>>> + /* Copy message into registers */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < payload_len; i += 2) {
>>> + /* hi byte */
>>> + val = payload_msg[i + 1] << 8;
>>> +
>>> + /* lo byte */
>>> + val |= payload_msg[i];
>>> +
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_WRITE_DATA_00 + i / 2, val);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + goto err;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + /* Send msg source/destination and fire msg */
>>> + destination = msg->msg[0];
>>> + status = smb_wr16(SECOCEC_WRITE_BYTE0, destination);
>>> + if (status)
>>> + goto err;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +err:
>>> + dev_err(dev, "Transmit failed (%d)", status);
>>
>> You can drop this: the cec module has already debug code for that.
>>
>>> + return status;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int secocec_tx_done(struct cec_adapter *adap, u16 status_val)
>>
>> Just return void since the return code is ignored anyway.
>
> Ok, will drop those.
>
>>
>>> +{
>>> + int status = 0;
>>> +
>>> + if (status_val & SECOCEC_STATUS_TX_ERROR_MASK) {
>>> + if (status_val & SECOCEC_STATUS_TX_NACK_ERROR) {
>>> + cec_transmit_attempt_done(adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_NACK);
>>> + status = -EAGAIN;
>>> + } else {
>>> + cec_transmit_attempt_done(adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_ERROR);
>>> + status = -EIO;
>>> + }
>>> + } else {
>>> + cec_transmit_attempt_done(adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_OK);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Reset status reg */
>>> + status_val = SECOCEC_STATUS_TX_ERROR_MASK |
>>> + SECOCEC_STATUS_MSG_SENT_MASK |
>>> + SECOCEC_STATUS_TX_NACK_ERROR;
>>> + smb_wr16(SECOCEC_STATUS, status_val);
>>> +
>>> + return status;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int secocec_rx_done(struct cec_adapter *adap, u16 status_val)
>>> +{
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>> + struct secocec_data *cec = cec_get_drvdata(adap);
>>> + struct device *dev = cec->dev;
>>> + struct cec_msg msg = { };
>>> + bool flag_overflow = false;
>>> + u8 payload_len, i = 0;
>>> + u8 *payload_msg;
>>> + u16 val = 0;
>>> + int status;
>>> +
>>> + if (status_val & SECOCEC_STATUS_RX_OVERFLOW_MASK) {
>>> + dev_warn(dev, "Received more than 16 bytes. Discarding");
>>
>> Is it better to just receive the first 16 bytes?
>
> In case of an overflow, it should discard the overflowing bytes, but I
> don't have any equipment that can test this. (this device can send up to
> 16 bytes).
Add a note that this might not be necessary, but that you couldn't test
this. I can test it when I find some time.
>
>>
>>> + flag_overflow = true;
>>> + }
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists