| 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: <CACvgo502+8YroB5QtnGYFeSu92s_vpe_M3cPFeuC77u9xpanXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 20:20:56 +0100
From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/bridge: Introduce LT9611 DSI to HDMI bridge
Hi Vinod,
Few high-level comments:
- handful of functions always return 0 and the return value is never
checked - switch to return void
- annotate all (nearly) arrays as static const
- consistently use multi_reg_write - in some cases non-const array
will be fine, overwriting a few entries as needed
- there is very partial comments about the registers/values - missing docs or?
Personally I'm in favour of using symbolic names, instead of
hex+comment. Considering how partial the comments are, current
approach is perfectly fine.
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 11:06, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Lontium Lt9611 is a DSI to HDMI bridge which supports two DSI ports and
> I2S port as an input and HDMI port as output
>
> Co-developed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/lt9611.c
Please add a vendor prefix to the filename.
> @@ -0,0 +1,1113 @@
> +struct lt9611_mode {
> + u16 hdisplay;
> + u16 vdisplay;
> + u8 fps;
We all enjoy the odd fps game, but let's use vrefresh here.
> + u8 lanes;
> + u8 intfs;
> +};
> +
> +static int lt9611_mipi_input_digital(struct lt9611 *lt9611,
> + const struct drm_display_mode *mode)
> +{
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8300, LT9611_4LANES);
> +
> + if (mode->hdisplay == 3840)
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x830a, 0x03);
> + else
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x830a, 0x00);
> +
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x824f, 0x80);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8250, 0x10);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8302, 0x0a);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8306, 0x0a);
Create an (non-const) array, overwriting the [1] entry for 3840 mode?
> +
> + return 0;
Kill return type.
> +}
> +static int lt9611_pcr_setup(struct lt9611 *lt9611,
> + const struct drm_display_mode *mode)
> +{
> + struct reg_sequence reg_cfg[] = {
static const?
> + { 0x830b, 0x01 },
> + { 0x830c, 0x10 },
> + { 0x8348, 0x00 },
> + { 0x8349, 0x81 },
> +
> + /* stage 1 */
> + { 0x8321, 0x4a },
> + { 0x8324, 0x71 },
> + { 0x8325, 0x30 },
> + { 0x832a, 0x01 },
> +
> + /* stage 2 */
> + { 0x834a, 0x40 },
> + { 0x831d, 0x10 },
> +
> + /* MK limit */
> + { 0x832d, 0x38 },
> + { 0x8331, 0x08 },
> + };
> +
> + regmap_multi_reg_write(lt9611->regmap, reg_cfg, ARRAY_SIZE(reg_cfg));
> +
> + switch (mode->hdisplay) {
> + case 640:
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8326, 0x14);
> + break;
> + case 1920:
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8326, 0x37);
> + break;
> + case 3840:
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x830b, 0x03);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x830c, 0xd0);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8348, 0x03);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8349, 0xe0);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8324, 0x72);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8325, 0x00);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x832a, 0x01);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x834a, 0x10);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x831d, 0x10);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8326, 0x37);
Throw this in another const array?
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* pcr rst */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8011, 0x5a);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8011, 0xfa);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x82e3, pclk >> 17); /* pclk[19:16] */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x82e4, pclk >> 9); /* pclk[15:8] */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x82e5, pclk >> 1); /* pclk[7:0] */
Comment does not match the code.
We're discarding the LSB, so we cannot realistically be writing
pclk[7:0]. Similar applies for the other two.
> + /* v_act */
> + ret = regmap_read(lt9611->regmap, 0x8282, &temp);
> + if (ret)
> + goto end;
> +
> + v_act = temp << 8;
> + ret = regmap_read(lt9611->regmap, 0x8283, &temp);
> + if (ret)
> + goto end;
> + v_act = v_act + temp;
> +
Having a helper for the above "result = read(x) << 8 | read(x+1)"
would be great.
This way one doesn't have to repeat the pattern 4-5 times.
> +static int lt9611_read_edid(struct lt9611 *lt9611)
> +{
> + unsigned int temp;
> + int ret = 0;
> + int i, j;
> +
> + memset(lt9611->edid_buf, 0, EDID_SEG_SIZE);
How about:
memset(lt9611->edid_buf, 0, sizeof(lt9611->edid_buf));
Then again, do we need the memset()? We are allocating the memory with
devm_kzalloc()
> +
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8503, 0xc9);
> +
> + /* 0xA0 is EDID device address */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8504, 0xa0);
> + /* 0x00 is EDID offset address */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8505, 0x00);
> + /* length for read */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8506, 0x20);
Is this the same 32 as seen in the loops below? #define and use consistently?
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8514, 0x7f);
> +
> + for (i = 0 ; i < 8 ; i++) {
Add a #define for the magic 8
> + /* offset address */
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8505, i * 32);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8507, 0x36);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8507, 0x31);
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8507, 0x37);
> + usleep_range(5000, 10000);
> +
> + regmap_read(lt9611->regmap, 0x8540, &temp);
> +
> + if (temp & 0x02) { /*KEY_DDC_ACCS_DONE=1*/
Use #define KEY_DDC_ACCS_DONE 0x02
> + for (j = 0; j < 32; j++) {
Another #define for 32
> + regmap_read(lt9611->regmap, 0x8583, &temp);
> + lt9611->edid_buf[i * 32 + j] = temp;
> + }
> + } else if (temp & 0x50) { /* DDC No Ack or Abitration lost */
> + dev_err(lt9611->dev, "read edid failed: no ack\n");
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto end;
> + } else {
> + dev_err(lt9611->dev,
> + "read edid failed: access not done\n");
> + ret = -EIO;
> + goto end;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + dev_dbg(lt9611->dev, "read edid succeeded, checksum = 0x%x\n",
> + lt9611->edid_buf[255]);
> +
> +end:
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x8507, 0x1f);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/* TODO: add support for more extension blocks */
> +static int
> +lt9611_get_edid_block(void *data, u8 *buf, unsigned int block, size_t len)
> +{
> + struct lt9611 *lt9611 = data;
> + int ret;
> +
> + dev_dbg(lt9611->dev, "get edid block: block=%d, len=%d\n",
> + block, (int)len);
> +
> + if (len > 128)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* support up to 1 extension block */
Move the TODO here?
> + if (block > 1)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (block == 0) {
> + /* always read 2 edid blocks once */
Please mention why that's a good idea. From memory - there aren't many
other drivers that do this.
> + ret = lt9611_read_edid(lt9611);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(lt9611->dev, "edid read failed\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (block % 2 == 0)
> + memcpy(buf, lt9611->edid_buf, len);
> + else
> + memcpy(buf, lt9611->edid_buf + 128, len);
The above can be written as:
memcpy(buf, lt9611->edid_buf + (block * 128), len);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int lt9611_bridge_attach(struct drm_bridge *bridge,
> + enum drm_bridge_attach_flags flags)
> +{
> + /* Attach secondary DSI, if specified */
> + if (lt9611->dsi1_node) {
> + lt9611->dsi1 = lt9611_attach_dsi(lt9611, lt9611->dsi1_node);
> + if (IS_ERR(lt9611->dsi1)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(lt9611->dsi1);
> + goto err_unregister_dsi0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_unregister_dsi0:
Missing detach? If possible directly use lt9611_bridge_detach().
> + mipi_dsi_device_unregister(lt9611->dsi0);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int lt9611_read_device_rev(struct lt9611 *lt9611)
> +{
> + unsigned int rev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + regmap_write(lt9611->regmap, 0x80ee, 0x01);
> + ret = regmap_read(lt9611->regmap, 0x8002, &rev);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(lt9611->dev, "failed to read revision: %d\n", ret);
> +
The "failed" message will be followed by printing random kernel memory.
Initialize rev to some dummy number or omit the dev_info.
> + dev_info(lt9611->dev, "LT9611 revision: 0x%x\n", rev);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int lt9611_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> + const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +{
> + ret = lt9611_parse_dt(&client->dev, lt9611);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to parse device tree\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = lt9611_gpio_init(lt9611);
> + if (ret < 0)
Missing of_node_put() here and for the next few error paths.
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = lt9611_regulator_init(lt9611);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + lt9611_assert_5v(lt9611);
> +
> + ret = lt9611_regulator_enable(lt9611);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_disable_regulators:
> + regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(lt9611->supplies), lt9611->supplies);
> +
> + of_node_put(lt9611->dsi0_node);
> + of_node_put(lt9611->dsi1_node);
Use the inverse order wrt the get() operation.
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int lt9611_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> +{
> + struct lt9611 *lt9611 = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> +
> + disable_irq(client->irq);
> + drm_bridge_remove(<9611->bridge);
> +
> + regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(lt9611->supplies), lt9611->supplies);
> +
> + of_node_put(lt9611->dsi0_node);
> + of_node_put(lt9611->dsi1_node);
Flip the order - dsi1, then dsi0
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct i2c_device_id lt9611_id[] = {
> + { "lontium,lt9611", 0},
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id lt9611_match_table[] = {
> + {.compatible = "lontium,lt9611"},
In the above two - add space after { and before }. Pretty sure
./scripts/checkpatch.pl will complain about those.
Might want to double-check for other issues reported by said tool.
-Emil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists