| 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: <6267ffc8-6ca4-86ad-7f87-c669bc9f3454@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:12:05 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: "elaine.zhang" <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>, heiko@...ech.de
Cc: rui.zhang@...el.com, edubezval@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xxx@...k-chips.com, xf@...k-chips.com, huangtao@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] thermal: rockchip: add pinctrl control
Hi Elaine,
On 11/04/2019 09:46, elaine.zhang wrote:
> hi,
>
> 在 2019/4/4 上午11:03, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
>> On 01/04/2019 08:43, Elaine Zhang wrote:
>>> Based on the TSADC Tshut mode to select pinctrl,
>>> instead of setting pinctrl based on architecture
>>> (Not depends on pinctrl setting by "init" or "default").
>>> And it requires setting the tshut polarity before select pinctrl.
>> I'm not sure to fully read the description. Can you rephrase/elaborate
>> the changelog?
> Example:
> tsadc: tsadc@...50000 {
> compatible = "rockchip,rk3328-tsadc";
> .....
> pinctrl-names = "init", "default", "sleep";
> pinctrl-0 = <&otp_gpio>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&otp_out>;
> pinctrl-2 = <&otp_gpio>;
> status = "disabled";
> .....
> };
> &tsadc {
> rockchip,hw-tshut-mode = <0>; /* tshut mode 0:CRU 1:GPIO */
> status = "okay";
> };
> Application on the product, hope tsadc overtemperature reset cru to
> restart.
> But when pinctrl is initialized, it will setting pinctrl by "init"
> and "default".
> So the pinctrl will set iomux to "otp_out", which may be make system
> crash.
why?
> tsadc gpio iomux:
> "otp_gpio" : just normal gpio, keep default level.
> "otp_out" : tsadc shut down io, when overtemperature,this io may be
> trigger high
> level or low level(depend on the tsadc polarity).
>
> After correction:
> if rockchip,hw-tshut-mode = <0>; (tsadc overtemperature reset cru to
> restart)
> select pinctrl to otp_gpio
> if rockchip,hw-tshut-mode = <1>;(tsadc overtemperature IO triggers
> output at high or low levels)
> select pinctrl to otp_out.
> Actively select iomux based on rockchip,hw-tshut-mode,
> rather than relying on the pinctrl framework to select iomux.
Let me rephrase it and tell me if I understood correctly:
"When the temperature sensor mode is set to 0, it will automatically
reset the board via the Clock-Reset-Unit (CRU) if the over temperature
threshold is reached. However, when the pinctrl initializes, it does a
transition to "otp_out" which may lead the SoC to crash (why?)
Explicitly use the pinctrl to set/unset the right mode instead of
relying on the pinctrl init mode"
So this patch is a fix and it must contain the Fixes: ... tag.
>>> Signed-off-by: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c | 61
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> b/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> index 9c7643d62ed7..faa6c7792155 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
>>> */
>>> enum tshut_mode {
>>> TSHUT_MODE_CRU = 0,
>>> - TSHUT_MODE_GPIO,
>>> + TSHUT_MODE_OTP,
>> Why do you change the enum name? The impact on the patch is much higher,
>> no ?
>
> I just want to make it a little bit more intuitive to understand the
> definition of mode.
>
> TSHUT_MODE_CRU: pinctrl select iomux to otp_gpio,the io is normal io.
> TSHUT_MODE_OTP: pinctrl select iomux to otp_out, the io is tsadc shut io.
I understand, but at the end the changes for this patch are counter
intuitive, so it is preferable to keep it as is so we can review the
important part.
[ ... ]
>>> +static void thermal_pinctrl_select_otp(struct
>>> rockchip_thermal_data *thermal)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!IS_ERR(thermal->pinctrl) &&
>>> !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(thermal->otp_state))
>>> + pinctrl_select_state(thermal->pinctrl,
>>> + thermal->otp_state);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void thermal_pinctrl_select_gpio(struct rockchip_thermal_data
>>> *thermal)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!IS_ERR(thermal->pinctrl) &&
>>> !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(thermal->gpio_state))
>>> + pinctrl_select_state(thermal->pinctrl,
>>> + thermal->gpio_state);
>>> +}
>> You should not have to create a couple of specific functions just to
>> check the pinctrl pointers are set. The caller should do that.
> Because there are several places where the call is made,create a couple
> of specific functions reduce a lot of duplicated code.
No, that does not reduce a lot of duplicated code, it hides the fact
there is no control from the caller. See the comments below.
[ ... ]
>>> static int rockchip_configure_from_dt(struct device *dev,
>>> struct device_node *np,
>>> struct rockchip_thermal_data *thermal)
>>> @@ -1103,7 +1120,7 @@ static int rockchip_configure_from_dt(struct
>>> device *dev,
>>> if (of_property_read_u32(np, "rockchip,hw-tshut-mode",
>>> &tshut_mode)) {
>>> dev_warn(dev,
>>> "Missing tshut mode property, using default (%s)\n",
>>> - thermal->chip->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_GPIO ?
>>> + thermal->chip->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_OTP ?
>>> "gpio" : "cru");
>>> thermal->tshut_mode = thermal->chip->tshut_mode;
>>> } else {
>>> @@ -1242,6 +1259,8 @@ static int rockchip_thermal_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> return error;
>>> }
>>> + thermal->chip->control(thermal->regs, false);
>>> +
>>> error = clk_prepare_enable(thermal->clk);
>>> if (error) {
>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to enable converter clock: %d\n",
>>> @@ -1267,6 +1286,24 @@ static int rockchip_thermal_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> thermal->chip->initialize(thermal->grf, thermal->regs,
>>> thermal->tshut_polarity);
>>> + if (thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_OTP) {
>>> + thermal->pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(&pdev->dev);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(thermal->pinctrl))
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find thermal pinctrl\n");
>>> +
>>> + thermal->gpio_state = pinctrl_lookup_state(thermal->pinctrl,
>>> + "gpio");
panic if devm_pinctrl_get fails.
>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(thermal->gpio_state))
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find thermal gpio state\n");
>>> +
>>> + thermal->otp_state = pinctrl_lookup_state(thermal->pinctrl,
>>> + "otpout");
>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(thermal->otp_state))
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find thermal otpout
>>> state\n");
>> What is the meaning for the rest of the code if the lookup fails for any
>> of those ?
> If the lookup fails for any of those， The pinctrl is no longer set and
> remains in its default state(otp_gpio normal io).
>>
>>> + thermal_pinctrl_select_otp(thermal);
>>> + }
>>> +
It is pointless to have a otp_state and a gpio_state field. Just use one
as the configuration tells you which lookup to do.
In case of error, just bail out. It is pointless to continue with a
broken configuration.
thermal->pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(&pdev->dev);
if (IS_ERR(thermal->pinctrl)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "....");
return PTR_ERR(thermal->pinctrl);
}
thermal->pinctrl_state =
pinctrl_lookup_state(thermal->pinctrl,
thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_OTP ?
"otp" : "gpio");
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(thermal->pinctrl_state)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "....");
return -EINVAL;
}
No need to use the thermal_pinctrl_select_otp/gpio wrappers, just
replace them with:
pinctrl_select_state(thermal->pinctrl, thermal->pinctrl_state);
and use it unconditionally.
>>> for (i = 0; i < thermal->chip->chn_num; i++) {
>>> error = rockchip_thermal_register_sensor(pdev, thermal,
>>> &thermal->sensors[i],
>>> @@ -1338,7 +1375,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused
>>> rockchip_thermal_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> clk_disable(thermal->pclk);
>>> clk_disable(thermal->clk);
>>> - pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(dev);
>>> + if (thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_OTP)
>>> + thermal_pinctrl_select_gpio(thermal);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> @@ -1383,7 +1421,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused
>>> rockchip_thermal_resume(struct device *dev)
>>> for (i = 0; i < thermal->chip->chn_num; i++)
>>> rockchip_thermal_toggle_sensor(&thermal->sensors[i], true);
>>> - pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(dev);
>>> + if (thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_OTP)
>>> + thermal_pinctrl_select_otp(thermal);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>
>
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists