linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 06/12] peci: Add a PECI adapter driver for Aspeed AST24xx/AST25xx

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: <abaef001-a769-ec5d-45f0-02a994fdbee6@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:49:48 -0800
From:   Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc:     Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>,
        Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@...ux.intel.com>,
        James Feist <james.feist@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vernon Mauery <vernon.mauery@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/12] peci: Add a PECI adapter driver for Aspeed
 AST24xx/AST25xx

On 1/14/2019 3:37 AM, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 08:11, Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> +       ret = of_property_read_u32(priv->dev->of_node, "cmd-timeout-ms",
>> +                                  &priv->cmd_timeout_ms);
>> +       if (ret || priv->cmd_timeout_ms > PECI_CMD_TIMEOUT_MS_MAX ||
>> +           priv->cmd_timeout_ms == 0) {
>> +               if (!ret)
>> +                       dev_warn(priv->dev,
>> +                                "Invalid cmd-timeout-ms : %u. Use default : %u\n",
>> +                                priv->cmd_timeout_ms,
>> +                                PECI_CMD_TIMEOUT_MS_DEFAULT);
> 
> As this property is documented as optional, I'd split out the checks
> so you only warn when the value provided is invalid.
> 

Please check the above 'if' statement too. It prints out warning only
when the property is defined in device tree but the value is out of
range.

>> +
>> +       regmap_write(priv->regmap, ASPEED_PECI_CTRL,
>> +                    FIELD_PREP(PECI_CTRL_CLK_DIV_MASK, PECI_CLK_DIV_DEFAULT) |
>> +                    PECI_CTRL_PECI_CLK_EN);
>> +
>> +       /**
> 
> Just the one *.
> 

Will fix it.

>> +        * Timing negotiation period setting.
>> +        * The unit of the programmed value is 4 times of PECI clock period.
>> +        */
>> +       regmap_write(priv->regmap, ASPEED_PECI_TIMING,
>> +                    FIELD_PREP(PECI_TIMING_MESSAGE_MASK, msg_timing) |
>> +                    FIELD_PREP(PECI_TIMING_ADDRESS_MASK, addr_timing));
> 
>> +static int aspeed_peci_xfer(struct peci_adapter *adapter,
>> +                           struct peci_xfer_msg *msg)
>> +{
>> +       struct aspeed_peci *priv = peci_get_adapdata(adapter);
>> +
>> +       return aspeed_peci_xfer_native(priv, msg);
>> +}
> 
> It looks like you could do the peci_get_adapdata in
> aspeed_peci_xfer_native and drop the need for this wrapper.
> 

Yes, that would be neater. Will remove this wrapper.

>> +
>> +static int aspeed_peci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
> 
>>
>> +       res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> +       base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>> +       if (IS_ERR(base)) {
>> +               ret = PTR_ERR(base);
>> +               goto err_put_adapter_dev;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       priv->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(&pdev->dev, base,
>> +                                            &aspeed_peci_regmap_config);
>> +       if (IS_ERR(priv->regmap)) {
>> +               ret = PTR_ERR(priv->regmap);
>> +               goto err_put_adapter_dev;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       /**
>> +        * We check that the regmap works on this very first access,
>> +        * but as this is an MMIO-backed regmap, subsequent regmap
>> +        * access is not going to fail and we skip error checks from
>> +        * this point.
> 
> Why do you use a regmap for this driver? AFAICT it has exclusive
> ownership over the register range it uses, which is sometimes a reason
> to use a regmap over a mmio region.
> 
> I'm not sure if you've ever disassembled drivers/base/regmap/regmap.o,
> but if you do you will find that a single mmio read turns into
> hundreds of instructions.
> 

No specific reason. regmap makes some overhead as you mentioned but it
also provides some advantages on access simplification, endianness
handling and register dump at run time. I would not insist using of
regmap if you prefer using of raw readl and writel. Do you want replace
regmap with readl and writel in this driver?

Thanks,
Jae

> Cheers,
> 
> Joel
>