| 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: <f675a0a1-8cc3-8bc9-8846-07e5e156c48e@metux.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 21:19:27 +0100
From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To: Morris Ku <saumah@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: morris_ku@...ix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Add SUNIX Multi-I/O card device driver
On 08.03.19 13:34, Morris Ku wrote:
Hi,
<snip>
> diff --git a/char/snx/snx_main.c b/char/snx/snx_main.c
if it's a serial card, shouldn't it go to drivers/tty/serial/snx/ ?
<snip>
> +char snx_ser_ic_table[SNX_SER_PORT_MAX_UART][10] = {
> + {"UNKNOWN"},
> + {"SUN1889"},
> + {"SUN1699"},
> + {"SUNMATX"},
> + {"SUN1999"}
> +};
> +
> +char snx_par_ic_table[SNX_PAR_PORT_MAX_UART][10] = {
> + {"UNKNOWN"},
> + {"SUN1888"},
> + {"SUN1689"},
> + {"SUNMATX"},
> + {"SUN1999"}
> +};
> +
> +char snx_port_remap[2][10] = {
> + {"NON-REMAP"},
> + {"REMAP"}
> +};
can't these be const static ?
> +
> +enum{
> +// golden-serial
> + GOLDEN_BOARD_TEST = 0,
> +
> +// matrix-serial
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P1002,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P1004,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P1008,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P1016,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P2002,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P2004,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P2008,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P3002,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P3004,
> + MATRIX_BOARD_P3008,
> +
> +// sun1999-serial RS232
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5027A,
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5037A,
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5056A,
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5066A,
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5016A,
> +
> + //sun1999-multi I/O
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5069A,
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5079A,
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5099A,
> +
> + //sun1999-parallel
> +
can we have a bit more consistent formatting (eg. all those comments
w/ same indention) ?
> + SUN1999_BOARD_5008A,
> +
<snip>
> +static struct pci_device_id sunix_pci_board_id[] = {
> +// golden-serial
can't this be const ?
(maybe even __initconst)
> + {VENID_GOLDEN, DEVID_G_SERIAL, SUBVENID_GOLDEN,
> + SUBDEVID_TEST, 0, 0, GOLDEN_BOARD_TEST},
> +
> +// matrix-serial
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P1002, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P1002},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P1004, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P1004},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P1008, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P1008},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P1016, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P1016},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P2002, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P2002},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P2004, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P2004},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P2008, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P2008},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P3002, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P3002},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P3004, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P3004},
> + {VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, SUBVENID_MATRIX,
> + SUBDEVID_P3008, 0, 0, MATRIX_BOARD_P3008},
> +
> + // sun1999-serial RS232
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5027A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5027A},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5037A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5037A},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5056A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5056A},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5066A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5066A},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5016A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5016A},
> +
> + // sun1999-multi I/O
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5069A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5069A},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5079A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5079A},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5099A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5099A},
> +
> + // sun1999-parallel
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_PARALL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_5008A, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_5008A},
> +
> + // sun1999-serial RS422/485
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_P2102, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_P2102},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_P2104, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_P2104},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_P2108, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_P2108},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_P2116, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_P2116},
> +
> + // sun1999 3_in_1
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_P3104, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_P3104},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_P3108, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_P3108},
> +
> + //cash drawer card 2S
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_CASH_2S, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_CASH_2S},
> +
> + //cash drawer card 4S
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_CASH_4S, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_CASH_4S},
> +
> + //DIO
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_DIO0802, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_DIO0802},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_DIO1604, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_DIO1604},
> + {VENID_SUN1999, DEVID_S_SERIAL, SUBVENID_SUN1999,
> + SUBDEVID_DIO3204, 0, 0, SUN1999_BOARD_DIO3204},
> +
> + {0}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, sunix_pci_board_id);
> +
> +struct sunix_board sunix_board_table[SNX_BOARDS_MAX];
> +struct sunix_ser_port sunix_ser_table[SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX + 1];
> +struct sunix_par_port sunix_par_table[SNX_PAR_TOTAL_MAX];
I'd really prefer separate port types - that go into separate
subsystems, in separate modules (those can share code in a common
module, if desired)
Oh, is there really a hard restriction on the max number of boards ?
And do we really need a global list of them ? (instead of just having
all per-board / per-port data in a per-board / per-port driver instance)
> +static int snx_ser_port_total_cnt;
> +static int snx_par_port_total_cnt;
> +
> +int snx_board_count;
> +
> +static struct snx_ser_driver sunix_ser_reg = {
> + .dev_name = "ttySNX",
> + .major = 0,
> + .minor = 0,
> + .nr = (SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX + 1),
> +};
can't this be const ?
> +static irqreturn_t sunix_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> +{
> + struct sunix_ser_port *sp = NULL;
> + struct sunix_par_port *pp = NULL;
> + struct sunix_board *sb = NULL;
> + int i;
> + int status = 0;
> +
> + int handled = IRQ_NONE;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < SNX_BOARDS_MAX; i++) {
> +
> + if (dev_id == &(sunix_board_table[i])) {
> + sb = dev_id;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
maybe put this index into the board data, so the loop on the global
array isn't needed ?
<snip>
> + if ((sb->ser_port > 0) && (sb->ser_isr != NULL)) {
> + sp = &sunix_ser_table[sb->ser_port_index];
maybe put this pointer struct sunix_board so the lookup in the
global array isn't necessary ?
<snip>
> + if ((sb->par_port > 0) && (sb->par_isr != NULL)) {
> + pp = &sunix_par_table[sb->par_port_index];
> +
> + if (!pp)
> + status = 1;
> +
> + status = sb->par_isr(sb, pp);
> + }
> +
> + if (status != 0)
> + return handled;
> +
> + handled = IRQ_HANDLED;
> + return handled;
> +}
btw: is there only one irq per board or one per port ?
> +static int snx_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> +{
> + return 0;
shouldn't probe check whether the device is actually there and then do
the initialization ?
<snip>
> +static int snx_resume_port_termios(struct snx_ser_info *info)
> +{
> + struct snx_ser_state *state = NULL;
> + struct tty_struct *tty = info->tty;
> +
> + state = tty->driver_data;
> + snx_set_port_termios(state);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
do we need multiple newlines here ?
<snip>
> +static int snx_resume_one(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + struct sunix_board *sb = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct sunix_ser_port *sp = NULL;
> + int j;
> +
> + if (sb == NULL)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < sb->ser_port; j++) {
> + sp = &sunix_ser_table[j];
can't the pointers to the serial ports be in struct sunix_board instead
of an global array ?
> +static int sunix_pci_board_probe(void)
> +{
> + struct sunix_board *sb;
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
> + struct pci_dev *pdev_array[4] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL};
> +
> + int sunix_pci_board_id_cnt;
> + int tablecnt;
> + int boardcnt;
> + int i;
> + unsigned short int sub_device_id;
> + unsigned short int device_part_number;
> + unsigned int bar3_base_add;
> +
> + int status;
> + unsigned int bar3_Byte5;
> + unsigned int bar3_Byte6;
> + unsigned int bar3_Byte7;
> + unsigned int oem_id;
> + unsigned char uart_type;
> + unsigned char gpio_type;
> + unsigned char gpio_card_type;
> + int gpio_ch_cnt;
> +
> + // clear and init some variable
> + memset(sunix_board_table, 0, SNX_BOARDS_MAX *
> + sizeof(struct sunix_board));
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < SNX_BOARDS_MAX; i++) {
> + sunix_board_table[i].board_enum = -1;
> + sunix_board_table[i].board_number = -1;
if it already is a global, why not statically initialized ?
> + }
> +
> + sunix_pci_board_id_cnt =
> + (sizeof(sunix_pci_board_id) / sizeof(sunix_pci_board_id[0])) - 1;
> +
> + // search matrix serial board
> + pdev = NULL;
> + tablecnt = 0;
> + boardcnt = 0;
> + sub_device_id = 0;
> + status = 0;
> +
> + while (tablecnt < sunix_pci_board_id_cnt) {
> +
> + pdev = pci_get_device(VENID_MATRIX, DEVID_M_SERIAL, pdev);
> +
> + if (pdev == NULL) {
> + tablecnt++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if ((tablecnt > 0) && ((pdev == pdev_array[0]) ||
> + (pdev == pdev_array[1]) ||
> + (pdev == pdev_array[2]) ||
> + (pdev == pdev_array[3]))) {
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + pci_read_config_word(pdev, 0x2e, &sub_device_id);
> +
> + if (sub_device_id == 0) {
> + status = -EIO;
> + return status;
> + }
> +
> + if (sub_device_id != sunix_pci_board_id[tablecnt].subdevice)
> + continue;
> + if (pdev == NULL) {
> + pr_err("SNX Error: PCI device object is NULL !\n");
> + status = -EIO;
> + return status;
> +
> + } else {
> +
> + status = pci_enable_device(pdev);
> +
> + if (status != 0) {
> + pr_err("SNX Error: SUNIX Board Enable Fail !\n\n");
> + status = -ENXIO;
> + return status;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + boardcnt++;
> + if (boardcnt > SNX_BOARDS_MAX) {
> + pr_err("SNX Error: Support Four Boards In Maximum !\n");
> + status = -ENOSPC;
> + return status;
> + }
> +
> + sb = &sunix_board_table[boardcnt-1];
> + pdev_array[boardcnt-1] = pdev;
> + sb->pdev = pdev;
> + sb->bus_number = pdev->bus->number;
> + sb->dev_number = PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn);
> + sb->board_enum = (int)sunix_pci_board_id[tablecnt].driver_data;
> + sb->pb_info = snx_pci_board_conf[sb->board_enum];
> + sb->board_flag = sb->pb_info.board_flag;
> + sb->board_number = boardcnt - 1;
> + }
Why not doing this in snx_pci_probe() on per-board basis, and let device
registration be done by pci subsystem ?
> + // search sun1999 muti I/O board
> + pdev = NULL;
> + tablecnt = 0;
> + sub_device_id = 0;
> + status = 0;
> + device_part_number = 0;
> + bar3_base_add = 0;
> + bar3_Byte5 = 0;
> + bar3_Byte6 = 0;
> + bar3_Byte7 = 0;
> + oem_id = 0;
> + uart_type = 0;
> + gpio_type = 0;
> + gpio_card_type = 0;
> + gpio_ch_cnt = 0;
completely different boards handled by one big driver ?
why not splitting it up into multiple drivers ?
<snip>
> + if ((gpio_ch_cnt == 0x00) && (gpio_card_type == 0x01))
> + gpio_ch_cnt = 6;
> + else if ((gpio_ch_cnt == 0x00) && (gpio_card_type == 0x02))
> + gpio_ch_cnt = 8;
> + else if (gpio_ch_cnt == 0x01)
> + gpio_ch_cnt = 16;
> + else if (gpio_ch_cnt == 0x02)
> + gpio_ch_cnt = 32;
> +
gpio devices have their own subsystem -> therefore: write a separate
gpio driver for that.
<snip>
> +static int sunix_get_pci_board_conf(void)
> +{
> + struct sunix_board *sb = NULL;
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
> + int status = 0;
> + int i;
> + int j;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < SNX_BOARDS_MAX; i++) {
> + sb = &sunix_board_table[i];
> +
> + if (sb->board_enum > 0) {
> + pdev = sb->pdev;
> + sb->ports = sb->pb_info.num_serport +
> + sb->pb_info.num_parport;
> + sb->ser_port = sb->pb_info.num_serport;
> + sb->par_port = sb->pb_info.num_parport;
> + snx_ser_port_total_cnt = snx_ser_port_total_cnt +
> + sb->ser_port;
> + snx_par_port_total_cnt = snx_par_port_total_cnt +
> + sb->par_port;
> +
> + if (snx_ser_port_total_cnt > SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX) {
> + pr_err("SNX Error: Too much serial port\n");
> + status = -EIO;
> + return status;
> + }
why that limitation ? why does this have to be a global array at all ?
> +static int sunix_assign_resource(void)
> +{
> + struct sunix_board *sb = NULL;
> + struct sunix_ser_port *sp = NULL;
> + struct sunix_par_port *pp = NULL;
> +
> + int status = 0;
> + int i;
> + int j;
> + int k;
> + int ser_n;
> + int ser_port_index = 0;
> +
> + memset(sunix_ser_table, 0, (SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX + 1) *
> + sizeof(struct sunix_ser_port));
> +
> + memset(sunix_par_table, 0, (SNX_PAR_TOTAL_MAX) *
> + sizeof(struct sunix_par_port));
why this w/ global variables, instead of on per-device basis on device-
private data ?
<snip>
> +static int sunix_ser_port_table_init(void)
> +{
same here.
<snip>
> +static int sunix_par_port_table_init(void)
> +{
same here
> +int sunix_register_irq(void)
> +{
same here.
<snip>
> +static int __init snx_init(void)
> +{
> + int status = 0;
> +
> + pr_err("SNX Info : Loading SUNIX Multi-I/O Board Driver Module\n");
> +
> + snx_ser_port_total_cnt = snx_par_port_total_cnt = 0;
> +
> + status = sunix_pci_board_probe();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step1_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_get_pci_board_conf();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step1_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_assign_resource();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step1_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_ser_port_table_init();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step1_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_par_port_table_init();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step1_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_register_irq();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step1_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_ser_register_driver(&sunix_ser_reg);
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step2_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_ser_register_ports(&sunix_ser_reg);
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step3_fail;
> +
> + status = pci_register_driver(&snx_pci_driver);
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step7_fail;
> +
> + if (snx_par_port_total_cnt > 0) {
> + status = sunix_par_parport_init();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step4_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_par_ppdev_init();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step5_fail;
> +
> + status = sunix_par_lp_init();
> + if (status != 0)
> + goto step6_fail;
> + }
why not doing those initializations on per-device basis, in the
corresponding probe() function ?
> +step7_fail:
> +
> + pci_unregister_driver(&snx_pci_driver);
> +step6_fail:
> +
> + sunix_par_ppdev_exit();
> +
> +
> +step5_fail:
> +
> + sunix_par_parport_exit();
> +
> +
> +step4_fail:
> +
> + sunix_ser_unregister_ports(&sunix_ser_reg);
> + }
> +
> +step3_fail:
> +
> + sunix_ser_unregister_driver(&sunix_ser_reg);
> +
> +
> +step2_fail:
> +
> + sunix_release_irq();
use devm_*() functions, which automatically releases resource when a
device is deleted, so explicit release isn't needed anymore.
> +static void __exit snx_exit(void)
> +{
> + if (snx_par_port_total_cnt > 0) {
> + sunix_par_lp_exit();
> + sunix_par_ppdev_exit();
> + sunix_par_parport_exit();
> + }
Let the cleanup be done by the individual driver's release functions,
and down forget to set .owner correctly - that way, the kernel won't
even allow unloading the module, as long as it's in use. then, you'd
probably don't need much more than just removing unregistering the
drivers here.
> diff --git a/char/snx/snx_serial.c b/char/snx/snx_serial.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..fdac4c90
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/char/snx/snx_serial.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,4263 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include "snx_common.h"
> +#include "driver_extd.h"
> +
> +#define SNX_ioctl_DBG 0
what exactly is that ioctl for ?
or more to the point: why are you introducing a driver specific iotctl ?
> +#define EEPROM_ACCESS_DELAY_COUNT 100000
> +
> +static DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(ser_port_sem);
> +
> +#define SNX_HIGH_BITS_OFFSET ((sizeof(long)-sizeof(int))*8)
> +#define sunix_ser_users(state) \
> +((state)->count + ((state)->info ? (state)->info->blocked_open : 0))
> +
> +static struct tty_port snx_service_port;
why has this to be global, instead of in per-device private data ?
<snip>
> +static _INLINE_ void snx_ser_handle_cts_change(
> + struct snx_ser_port *, unsigned int);
Where's this strange "_INLINE_" coming from ?
<snip>
> +//extern void snx_ser_change_speed(
> + //struct snx_ser_state *state, struct SNXTERMIOS *old_termios);
please no dead/commented-out code.
> +//extern int sunix_ser_interrupt(
> + //struct sunix_board *, struct sunix_ser_port *first_sp);
same here
> +//extern int sunix_ser_register_ports(struct snx_ser_driver *drv);
> +//extern void sunix_ser_unregister_ports(struct snx_ser_driver *drv);
> +//extern int sunix_ser_register_driver(struct snx_ser_driver *drv);
> +//extern void sunix_ser_unregister_driver(struct snx_ser_driver *drv);
same here
> +static unsigned char READ_INTERRUPT_VECTOR_BYTE(struct sunix_ser_port *sp)
i'd recommend no caps in function names.
> + if (var == 0x04) {
> + vet4 = inb(local_vector + 0xb0);
> + vet4 <<= 12;
> + }
> +
> + data = (vet1 | vet2 | vet3 | vet4);
> +
> + return data;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> +
remove excess newlines
<snip>
> +static int EEPROMWriteData(int targetConfigAddress, int address, int data)
why do you use int instead of void* for addresses ?
oh, and shouldn't it be __iomem ?
<snip>
> + Error = inb(targetConfigAddress + 0x08) & 0x04;
<snip>
> +static void snx_ser_start(struct tty_struct *tty)
> +{
> + int line = SNX_SER_DEVNUM(tty);
> +
> + if (line >= SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX)
> + return;
> +
> + //spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> + __snx_ser_start(tty);
> + //spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
why are the spinlock calls commented out ?
<nsip>
> + tasklet_kill(&info->tlet);
what exactly is the tasklet needed for ?
> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> + retval = -EPERM;
why this explicit check for CAP_SYS_ADMIN ?
> + if (change_irq ||
indention mismatch.
> + change_port ||
why is userland allowed to change irq, port, etc, if that's probed
from pci anyways ?
> + (new_serial.baud_base != port->uartclk / 16) ||
> + (close_delay != state->close_delay) ||
> + (closing_wait != state->closing_wait) ||
> + (new_serial.xmit_fifo_size != port->fifosize) ||
> + (((new_flags ^ old_flags) & ~SNX_UPF_USR_MASK) != 0)) {
> + goto exit;
> + }
> +
> + port->flags = ((port->flags & ~SNX_UPF_USR_MASK) |
> + (new_flags & SNX_UPF_USR_MASK));
> + port->custom_divisor = new_serial.custom_divisor;
> + goto check_and_exit;
> + }
<snip>
> +static int snx_ser_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty,
> +unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> +{
<snip>
> + case TIOCSSERIAL:
> + {
> + if (line < SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX) {
> + state->port->setserial_flag = SNX_SER_BAUD_SETSERIAL;
> + ret = snx_ser_set_info(state,
> + (struct serial_struct *)arg);
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> +
> +
> + case TCSETS:
> + {
> + if (line < SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX) {
> + state->port->flags &= ~(SNX_UPF_SPD_HI |
> + SNX_UPF_SPD_VHI |
> + SNX_UPF_SPD_SHI |
> + SNX_UPF_SPD_WARP);
> + state->port->setserial_flag = SNX_SER_BAUD_NOTSETSER;
> + snx_ser_update_termios(state);
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> +
Why do you need your own implementation of these tty ioctl()'s ?
The tty subsystem handles them on its own (using the callbacks for hw-
specific operations)
> + case SNX_SER_DUMP_PORT_INFO:
<snip>
> + case SNX_SER_DUMP_DRIVER_VER:
<snip>
> + case SNX_COMM_GET_BOARD_CNT:
<snip>
> + case SNX_COMM_GET_BOARD_INFO:
is it really necessary to introduce your own driver-specific ioctl() ?
why not putting these things into debugfs or sysfs ?
> + case SNX_GPIO_GET:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_SET:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_READ:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_WRITE:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_SET_DEFAULT:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_WRITE_DEFAULT:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_GET_INPUT_INVERT:
<snip>
> + case SNX_GPIO_SET_INPUT_INVERT:
gpio stuff clearly doesn't belong into tty ioctl()s.
that's what the gpio subsystem is there for - this provides the linux
standard api for gpio access.
> + case SNX_UART_GET_TYPE:
what exactly is this for ?
<snip>
> + } else {
> + //pr_err(CE_NOTE, "WARNING : incorrect port
> + //number (port = %d)!",gb.uart_num);
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + switch (uart_type) {
> + case 0: // RS-232
yet another indention mismatch.
and please remove dead code.
<snip>
> + case SNX_UART_SET_TYPE: {
what is this for ?
<snip>
> + case SNX_UART_SET_ACS:
what is "ACS" ?
> + {
> + SNX_DRVR_UART_SET_ACS gb;
> + struct sunix_board *sb = NULL;
> + int ACSstate = 0;
> + int targetConfigAddress = 0;
> +
> + memset(&gb, 0, sizeof(SNX_DRVR_UART_SET_ACS));
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(&gb, (void *)arg,
> + (sizeof(SNX_DRVR_UART_SET_ACS))))
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + else
> + ret = 0;
> +
> + sb = &sunix_board_table[gb.board_id - 1];
do we really need to access global variables here ?
<snip>
> + if (tty->flags & (1 << TTY_IO_ERROR)) {
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + switch (cmd) {
> + case TIOCMIWAIT:
yet another idention mismatch.
<snip>
> + if (line < SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX) {
> + down(&state->sem);
> +
> + switch (cmd) {
> + case TIOCSERGETLSR:
> + ret = snx_ser_get_lsr_info(state, (unsigned int *)arg);
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + {
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + up(&state->sem);
> + }
even more indention mismatches.
<snip>
> +static void snx_ser_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
> +struct SNXTERMIOS *old_termios)
> +{
> + struct snx_ser_state *state = NULL;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned int cflag = tty->termios.c_cflag;
> + int line = SNX_SER_DEVNUM(tty);
> +
> + if (line >= SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX)
> + return;
> +
> + state = tty->driver_data;
> +
> +#define RELEVANT_IFLAG(iflag) ((iflag) & (IGNBRK|BRKINT|IGNPAR|PARMRK|INPCK))
please no #define's in the middle of a function.
<snip>
> +static void snx_ser_update_timeout(struct snx_ser_port *port,
> +unsigned int cflag, unsigned int baud)
> +{
> + unsigned int bits;
> +
> + switch (cflag & CSIZE) {
> + case CS5:
> + bits = 7;
> + break;
> +
more indention mismatches.
<snip>
> +static int snx_ser_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *filp)
> +{
> + struct snx_ser_driver *drv =
> + (struct snx_ser_driver *)tty->driver->driver_state;
> +
> + struct snx_ser_state *state = NULL;
> + struct tty_port *tport = NULL;
> +
> + int retval = 0;
> + int line = SNX_SER_DEVNUM(tty);
> +
> + if (line < SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX) {
> + retval = -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (line >= SNX_SER_TOTAL_MAX)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + state = snx_ser_get(drv, line);
> +
> + tport = &state->tport;
> +
> + if (IS_ERR(state)) {
> + retval = PTR_ERR(state);
> + goto fail;
> + }
> +
> + if (!state)
> + goto fail;
> +
> +
> + state->port->suspended = 1;
> + tty->driver_data = state;
> +
> + tport->low_latency = (state->port->flags &
> + SNX_UPF_LOW_LATENCY) ? 1 : 0;
> +
> + state->info->tty = tty;
> +
> + tty_port_tty_set(tport, tty);
> +
> + if (tty_hung_up_p(filp)) {
> + retval = -EAGAIN;
> + state->count--;
> + up(&state->sem);
> + goto fail;
> + }
> +
> + retval = snx_ser_startup(state, 0);
> +
> + if (retval == 0)
> + retval = snx_ser_block_til_ready(filp, state);
> +
> + up(&state->sem);
> +
> + if (retval == 0 && !(state->info->flags &
> + SNX_UIF_NORMAL_ACTIVE)) {
> + state->info->flags |= SNX_UIF_NORMAL_ACTIVE;
> +
> + snx_ser_update_termios(state);
> + }
> +
> + try_module_get(THIS_MODULE);
why this ?
<snip>
> +extern int sunix_ser_register_driver(struct snx_ser_driver *drv)
> +{
> + struct tty_driver *normal = NULL;
> + int i;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + drv->state = kmalloc(sizeof(struct snx_ser_state) * drv->nr,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
> + if (!drv->state) {
> + pr_err("SNX Error: Allocate memory fail !\n\n");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + memset(drv->state, 0, sizeof(struct snx_ser_state) * drv->nr);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < drv->nr; i++) {
> + struct snx_ser_state *state = drv->state + i;
> + struct tty_port *tport = &state->tport;
> +
> + tty_port_init(tport);
does that really need to be globally in driver init, instead of in per
port device->open (and use device's private data) ?
<snip>
> +extern void sunix_ser_unregister_ports(struct snx_ser_driver *drv)
why are these 'extern' ?!
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists