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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:59:21 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Shravan Kumar Ramani <sramani@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gpio: add driver for Mellanox BlueField GPIO controller

wt., 19 lut 2019 o 21:55 Shravan Kumar Ramani <sramani@...lanox.com> napisaƂ(a):
>
> This patch adds support for the GPIO controller used by Mellanox
> BlueField SOCs.
>

Thanks for addressing the issues. A couple more things I missed the
last time are below.

> Reviewed-by: David Woods <dwoods@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shravan Kumar Ramani <sramani@...lanox.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/Kconfig      |   6 ++
>  drivers/gpio/Makefile     |   1 +
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-mlxbf.c | 246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 253 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/gpio-mlxbf.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
> index b5a2845..c950fe8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
> @@ -1292,6 +1292,12 @@ config GPIO_MERRIFIELD
>         help
>           Say Y here to support Intel Merrifield GPIO.
>
> +config GPIO_MLXBF
> +       tristate "Mellanox BlueField SoC GPIO"
> +       depends on (MELLANOX_PLATFORM && ARM64 && ACPI) || COMPILE_TEST
> +       help
> +         Say Y here if you want GPIO support on Mellanox BlueField SoC.
> +
>  config GPIO_ML_IOH
>         tristate "OKI SEMICONDUCTOR ML7213 IOH GPIO support"
>         depends on X86 || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Makefile b/drivers/gpio/Makefile
> index 37628f8..8d54279 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/Makefile
> @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MENZ127)    += gpio-menz127.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MERRIFIELD)  += gpio-merrifield.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MC33880)     += gpio-mc33880.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MC9S08DZ60)  += gpio-mc9s08dz60.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MLXBF)       += gpio-mlxbf.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_ML_IOH)      += gpio-ml-ioh.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MM_LANTIQ)   += gpio-mm-lantiq.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_MOCKUP)      += gpio-mockup.o
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mlxbf.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mlxbf.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..bf197aa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mlxbf.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h>

The two headers above are not needed - you neither define any module
params nor use any pinctrl consumer API.

> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pm.h>
> +#include <linux/resource.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/version.h>
> +
> +/* Number of pins on BlueField */
> +#define MLXBF_GPIO_NR 54

The naming convention for symbols is not consistent. Could you use
mlxbf_gpio_ prefix for all symbols in this driver? Uppercase for
defines and lowercase for functions and structures.

> +
> +/* Pad Electrical Controls. */
> +#define GPIO_PAD_CONTROL__FIRST_WORD 0x0700
> +#define GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_1__FIRST_WORD 0x0708
> +#define GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_2__FIRST_WORD 0x0710
> +#define GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_3__FIRST_WORD 0x0718
> +
> +#define GPIO_PIN_DIR_I 0x1040
> +#define GPIO_PIN_DIR_O 0x1048
> +#define GPIO_PIN_STATE 0x1000
> +#define GPIO_SCRATCHPAD 0x20
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> +struct bluefield_context_save_regs {
> +       u64 gpio_scratchpad;
> +       u64 gpio_pad_control[MLXBF_GPIO_NR];
> +       u64 gpio_pin_dir_i;
> +       u64 gpio_pin_dir_o;
> +};
> +#endif
> +
> +/* Device state structure. */
> +struct gpio_state {
> +       struct gpio_chip gc;
> +
> +       /* Must hold this lock to modify shared data. */
> +       spinlock_t lock;
> +
> +       /* Memory Address */
> +       void __iomem *dc_base;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> +       struct bluefield_context_save_regs csave_regs;
> +#endif
> +};
> +
> +static int gpio_bf_set_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +       u64 in;
> +       u64 out;
> +
> +       out = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_O);
> +       in = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_I);
> +
> +       writeq(out & ~BIT(offset), gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_O);
> +       writeq(in | BIT(offset), gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_I);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int gpio_bf_set_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +       u64 in;
> +       u64 out;
> +
> +       out = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_O);
> +       in = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_I);
> +
> +       writeq(out | BIT(offset), gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_O);
> +       writeq(in & ~BIT(offset), gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_I);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int gpio_bf_set_output_lock(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> +                                  unsigned int offset, int value)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +
> +       spin_lock(&gs->lock);
> +       gpio_bf_set_output(chip, offset);

There's no reason to split these functions into locked and unlocked
parts - please merge them.

> +       spin_unlock(&gs->lock);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int gpio_bf_set_input_lock(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +
> +       spin_lock(&gs->lock);
> +       gpio_bf_set_input(chip, offset);
> +       spin_unlock(&gs->lock);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int gpio_bf_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> +{
> +       u64 value;
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +
> +       value = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_STATE);

No spinlock here?

> +
> +       return (value >> offset) & 1;
> +}
> +
> +static void gpio_bf_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset, int value)
> +{
> +       u64 data;
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> +
> +       spin_lock(&gs->lock);
> +       data = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_STATE);
> +
> +       if (value)
> +               data |= BIT(offset);
> +       else
> +               data &= ~BIT(offset);
> +       writeq(data, gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_STATE);
> +       spin_unlock(&gs->lock);
> +}
> +
> +static int gpiodrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs;
> +       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +       struct gpio_chip *gc;
> +       struct resource *dc_res;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       dc_res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);

No need to check the return value - just call platform_get_resource()
and pass the return value to devm_ioremap_resource() in the next line.
Grep for devm_ioremap_resource() and you'll see how it's used.

> +       if (!dc_res)
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +
> +       gs = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct gpio_state), GFP_KERNEL);

Should be sizeof(*gs).

> +       if (!gs)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       gs->dc_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, dc_res);
> +       if (!gs->dc_base)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       gc = &gs->gc;
> +       gc->direction_input = gpio_bf_set_input_lock;
> +       gc->get = gpio_bf_get;
> +       gc->direction_output = gpio_bf_set_output_lock;
> +       gc->set = gpio_bf_set;
> +       gc->label = dev_name(dev);
> +       gc->parent = &pdev->dev;
> +       gc->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> +       gc->base = 0;

Are you sure you want to enforce the base to be 0? If you want it
assigned automatically, it should be -1.

> +       gc->ngpio = MLXBF_GPIO_NR;
> +
> +       ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, &gs->gc, gs);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed adding memory mapped gpiochip\n");
> +               goto err;
> +       }
> +
> +       spin_lock_init(&gs->lock);
> +       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, gs);
> +       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "registered Mellanox BlueField GPIO");
> +       return 0;
> +
> +err:
> +       dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Probe, Failed\n");

No need for this, the device driver subsystem will log the failure.

> +       return ret;
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> +static int gpiodrv_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, pm_message_t state)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_scratchpad = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_SCRATCHPAD);
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[0] =
> +               readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PAD_CONTROL__FIRST_WORD);
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[1] =
> +               readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_1__FIRST_WORD);
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[2] =
> +               readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_2__FIRST_WORD);
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[3] =
> +               readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_3__FIRST_WORD);
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_pin_dir_i = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_I);
> +       gs->csave_regs.gpio_pin_dir_o = readq(gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_O);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int gpiodrv_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_state *gs = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_scratchpad, gs->dc_base + GPIO_SCRATCHPAD);
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[0], gs->dc_base +
> +              GPIO_PAD_CONTROL__FIRST_WORD);
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[1], gs->dc_base +
> +              GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_1__FIRST_WORD);
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[2], gs->dc_base +
> +              GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_2__FIRST_WORD);
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_pad_control[3], gs->dc_base +
> +              GPIO_PAD_CONTROL_3__FIRST_WORD);
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_pin_dir_i, gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_I);
> +       writeq(gs->csave_regs.gpio_pin_dir_o, gs->dc_base + GPIO_PIN_DIR_O);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +static const struct acpi_device_id gpiodrv_acpi_match[] = {
> +       { "MLNXBF02", 0 },
> +       {}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, gpiodrv_acpi_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver gpiodrv_gpio_driver = {
> +       .driver = {
> +               .name = "gpiodrv",
> +               .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(gpiodrv_acpi_match),
> +       },
> +       .probe    = gpiodrv_probe,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> +       .suspend  = gpiodrv_suspend,
> +       .resume   = gpiodrv_resume,
> +#endif
> +};
> +
> +module_platform_driver(gpiodrv_gpio_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Mellanox BlueField GPIO Driver");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Mellanox Technologies");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> --
> 2.1.2
>

Bart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists