| 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: <20190213125353.GI647@ulmo>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:53:53 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
tduszyns@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pwm: core: add consumer device link
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:50:12AM +0100, Fabrice Gasnier wrote:
> Add a device link between the PWM consumer and the PWM provider. This
> enforces the PWM user to get suspended before the PWM provider. It
> allows proper synchronization of suspend/resume sequences: the PWM user
> is responsible for properly stopping PWM, before the provider gets
> suspended: see [1]. Add the device link in:
> - of_pwm_get()
> - pwm_get()
> - devm_ variants
> as it requires a reference to the device for the PWM consumer.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/5/770
>
> Suggested-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - add struct device to of_get_pwm() arguments to handle device link from
> there.
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> include/linux/pwm.h | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> index 1581f6a..8cb5d4bc 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> @@ -638,6 +638,7 @@ static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np)
>
> /**
> * of_pwm_get() - request a PWM via the PWM framework
> + * @dev: device for PWM consumer
> * @np: device node to get the PWM from
> * @con_id: consumer name
> *
> @@ -655,7 +656,8 @@ static struct pwm_chip *of_node_to_pwmchip(struct device_node *np)
> * Returns: A pointer to the requested PWM device or an ERR_PTR()-encoded
> * error code on failure.
> */
> -struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id)
> +struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> + const char *con_id)
> {
> struct pwm_device *pwm = NULL;
> struct of_phandle_args args;
> @@ -689,6 +691,9 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id)
> if (IS_ERR(pwm))
> goto put;
>
> + if (!device_link_add(dev, pwm->chip->dev, DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER))
> + pr_debug("%s(): device link not added\n", __func__);
I think it's better to turn this into dev_dbg(dev, ...) and maybe
mention which supplier it failed to link to, something like:
if (!device_link_add(...))
dev_dbg(dev, "failed to create device link to %s\n",
pwm->chip->dev);
Also, I wonder if this should perhaps be dev_err(). Under what
circumstances does this fail?
> +
> /*
> * If a consumer name was not given, try to look it up from the
> * "pwm-names" property if it exists. Otherwise use the name of
> @@ -771,7 +776,7 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
>
> /* look up via DT first */
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev && dev->of_node)
> - return of_pwm_get(dev->of_node, con_id);
> + return of_pwm_get(dev, dev->of_node, con_id);
>
> /*
> * We look up the provider in the static table typically provided by
> @@ -851,6 +856,9 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
> pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
>
> + if (!device_link_add(dev, pwm->chip->dev, DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER))
> + pr_debug("%s(): device link not added\n", __func__);
Same here. Also: not sure if we really need to include __func__ in the
message.
> +
> return pwm;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwm_get);
> @@ -939,7 +947,7 @@ struct pwm_device *devm_of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> if (!ptr)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> - pwm = of_pwm_get(np, con_id);
> + pwm = of_pwm_get(dev, np, con_id);
> if (!IS_ERR(pwm)) {
> *ptr = pwm;
> devres_add(dev, ptr);
> diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h
> index d5199b5..895e074 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pwm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h
> @@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_xlate_with_flags(struct pwm_chip *pc,
> const struct of_phandle_args *args);
>
> struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id);
> -struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id);
> +struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> + const char *con_id);
I'm slightly concerned about this. I think one of the reasons why this
was introduced was to allow code to get at the PWM if they didn't have
a struct device * available. However, it doesn't seem like there are any
users of that function, so this seems fine.
Thierry
> void pwm_put(struct pwm_device *pwm);
>
> struct pwm_device *devm_pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id);
> @@ -494,7 +495,8 @@ static inline struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev,
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> }
>
> -static inline struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np,
> +static inline struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_node *np,
> const char *con_id)
> {
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists