| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:40:48 +0000
From: Biwen Li <biwen.li@....com>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [v3,2/2] i2c: mux: pca954x: support property idle-state
> On 2019-10-16 06:09, Biwen Li wrote:
> > This supports property idle-state
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Biwen Li <biwen.li@....com>
> > ---
> > Change in v3:
> > - update subject and description
> > - add a helper function pca954x_calculate_chan()
> >
> > Change in v2:
> > - update subject and description
> > - add property idle-state
> >
> > drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 64
> > ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
> > index 923aa3a5a3dc..8777d429269c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c
> > @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ struct pca954x {
> >
> > u8 last_chan; /* last register value */
> > /* MUX_IDLE_AS_IS, MUX_IDLE_DISCONNECT or >= 0 for channel */
> > - s8 idle_state;
> > + s32 idle_state;
> >
> > struct i2c_client *client;
> >
> > @@ -229,22 +229,25 @@ static int pca954x_reg_write(struct i2c_adapter
> *adap,
> > I2C_SMBUS_BYTE, &dummy); }
> >
> > +static int pca954x_calculate_chan(struct pca954x *data, u32 chan)
>
> Should return u8, and "chan" is not what is calculated. Perhaps name the
> function pca954x_regval?
Okay, got it, I will change it in v4.
>
> (Yes, last_chan is also clearly a bad name, and I suspect you may have
> based this name on it, but changing that is a separate patch.)
>
> > +{
> > + /* we make switches look like muxes, not sure how to be smarter */
> > + if (data->chip->muxtype == pca954x_ismux)
> > + return chan | data->chip->enable;
> > + else
> > + return 1 << chan;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int pca954x_select_chan(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan)
> > {
> > struct pca954x *data = i2c_mux_priv(muxc);
> > struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
> > - const struct chip_desc *chip = data->chip;
> > u8 regval;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - /* we make switches look like muxes, not sure how to be smarter */
> > - if (chip->muxtype == pca954x_ismux)
> > - regval = chan | chip->enable;
> > - else
> > - regval = 1 << chan;
> > -
> > + regval = pca954x_calculate_chan(data, chan);
>
> I think I would have kept the empty line here. Not important...
>
> > /* Only select the channel if its different from the last channel */
> > - if (data->last_chan != regval) {
> > + if ((data->last_chan & 0xff) != regval) {
>
> The changes on this line are not needed (last_chan and regval are both u8)
> and just clutters up the code.
Okay, got it, I will not change it in v4.
>
> > ret = pca954x_reg_write(muxc->parent, client, regval);
> > data->last_chan = ret < 0 ? 0 : regval;
> > }
> > @@ -256,7 +259,7 @@ static int pca954x_deselect_mux(struct
> > i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 chan) {
> > struct pca954x *data = i2c_mux_priv(muxc);
> > struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
> > - s8 idle_state;
> > + s32 idle_state;
> >
> > idle_state = READ_ONCE(data->idle_state);
> > if (idle_state >= 0)
> > @@ -402,6 +405,23 @@ static void pca954x_cleanup(struct
> i2c_mux_core *muxc)
> > i2c_mux_del_adapters(muxc);
> > }
> >
> > +static int pca954x_init(struct i2c_client *client, struct pca954x
> > +*data) {
> > + /*
> > + * Write the mux register at addr to verify
> > + * that the mux is in fact present. This also
> > + * initializes the mux to a channel
> > + * or disconnected state.
> > + */
>
> Again, this comment belongs in pca954x_probe before the call to this
> function.
> It does not apply (at least not the first sentence) when pca954x_init is called
> from pca954x_resume.
Okay, got it, thanks, I will move it in v4.
>
> Hmmm, it could be argued that specifying MUX_IDLE_AS_IS should not
> trigger a disconnect on init (since the mux is always idle at init) and that
> some other method should be used to determine if the chip is present. The
> difference is that with the idle-state property you can explicitly request
> MUX_IDLE_AS_IS, while the old code only had some default behavior if
> i2c-mux-idle-disconnect was not present.
>
> The easy way out of this is to, in the binding, document the situation and say
> that "idle-state = <MUX_IDLE_AS_IS>;" is not supported but that similar
> functionality can be obtained by leaving out both the
> i2c-mux-idle-disconnect and idle-state properties.
I will support MUX_IDLE_AS_IS in v4.
>
> > + if (data->idle_state >= 0) {
> > + data->last_chan = pca954x_calculate_chan(data,
> data->idle_state);
> > + } else {
> > + /* Disconnect multiplexer */
> > + data->last_chan = 0;
> > + }
> > + return i2c_smbus_write_byte(client, data->last_chan); }
> > +
> > /*
> > * I2C init/probing/exit functions
> > */
> > @@ -411,7 +431,6 @@ static int pca954x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > struct i2c_adapter *adap = client->adapter;
> > struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> > struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > - bool idle_disconnect_dt;
> > struct gpio_desc *gpio;
> > struct i2c_mux_core *muxc;
> > struct pca954x *data;
> > @@ -462,22 +481,18 @@ static int pca954x_probe(struct i2c_client
> *client,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - /* Write the mux register at addr to verify
> > - * that the mux is in fact present. This also
> > - * initializes the mux to disconnected state.
> > - */
> > - if (i2c_smbus_write_byte(client, 0) < 0) {
> > + data->idle_state = MUX_IDLE_AS_IS;
> > + if (np && of_property_read_u32(np, "idle-state", &data->idle_state))
> {
> > + if (np && of_property_read_bool(np,
> > + "i2c-mux-idle-disconnect"))
>
> You do not need to do the "np &&" part for both ifs, since it's already know
> that np is non-NULL when you hit the second if. But, it's a NOP in the first if,
> since of_property_read_u32 returns -EINVAL if it is. So, I suggest
>
> if (of_property_read_u32(np, "idle-state", &data->idle_state)) {
> if (np && of_property_read_bool(np,
> "i2c-mux-idle-disconnect"))
Okay, thanks, I will remove it in v4.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> > + data->idle_state = MUX_IDLE_DISCONNECT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = pca954x_init(client, data);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_warn(dev, "probe failed\n");
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > - data->last_chan = 0; /* force the first selection */
> > - data->idle_state = MUX_IDLE_AS_IS;
> > -
> > - idle_disconnect_dt = np &&
> > - of_property_read_bool(np, "i2c-mux-idle-disconnect");
> > - if (idle_disconnect_dt)
> > - data->idle_state = MUX_IDLE_DISCONNECT;
> >
> > ret = pca954x_irq_setup(muxc);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -531,8 +546,7 @@ static int pca954x_resume(struct device *dev)
> > struct i2c_mux_core *muxc = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > struct pca954x *data = i2c_mux_priv(muxc);
> >
> > - data->last_chan = 0;
> > - return i2c_smbus_write_byte(client, 0);
> > + return pca954x_init(client, data);
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists