| 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: <20200825095726.yvg34q74xy57qhrx@mobilestation>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:57:26 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Cc: hoan@...amperecomputing.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
bgolaszewski@...libre.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel.openeuler@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: dwapb: add support for new hisilicon ascend soc
Hello Ding,
Thanks for the patch. My comments are below.
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:27:53PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> The hisilicon ascend soc's gpio is based on the synopsys DW gpio,
> and expand the register to support for INTCOMB_MASK, the new
> register is used to enable/disable the interrupt combine features.
I am wondering what does the "Interrupt Combine" feature do? Is it the same as
the GPIO_INTR_IO pre-synthesize parameter of the DW_apb_gpio IP-core? Is it
possible to tune the DW APB GPIO controller at runtime sending up to the IRQ
controller either combined or individual interrupts?
If the later is true, then probably having the "Interrupt Combine" feature
enabled must depend on whether an individual or combined interrupts are supplied
in dts, etc...
Could you explain the way the feature works and the corresponding layout
register in more details?
>
> Both support for ACPI and Device Tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c
> index 1d8d55b..923b381 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-dwapb.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
> #define GPIO_EXT_PORTC 0x58
> #define GPIO_EXT_PORTD 0x5c
>
> +#define GPIO_INTCOMB_MASK 0xffc
If the register is the HiSilicon Ascend SoC specific, then I'd suggest to add
the vendor-specific prefix like: GPIO_HS_INTCOMB_MASK.
Also pay attention to the register naming. Here you define it as "INTCOMB",
later as "INT_COMB". It's better to have the same references everywhere: either
with underscore or without it.
Also please move the new register definition to be after the corresponding
feature macro definition (see the next comment for detailts).
> +
> #define DWAPB_DRIVER_NAME "gpio-dwapb"
> #define DWAPB_MAX_PORTS 4
>
> @@ -58,6 +60,10 @@
>
> #define GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V2 1
>
> +#define GPIO_REG_INT_COMB 2
Please move this macro to be define after the "GPIO_PORTA_EOI_V2" one, so to
make the blocked-like macro definitions order. Like this:
#define GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V2 BIT(0) // Reg V2 Feature macro
#define GPIO_INTMASK_V2 0x44 // Reg V2-specific macro
...
#define GPIO_PORTA_EOI_V2 0x40 // Reg V2-specific macro
+ #define GPIO_REG_HS_INTCOMB BIT(1) // HiSilicon Feature macro
+
+ #define GPIO_HS_INTCOMB_MASK 0xffc // HiSilicon-specific macro
+
I missed that in my series, but having the flags defined as decimals isn't good.
Could you convert GPIO_REG_HS_INTCOMB and GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V2 to be defined as BIT(x)?
The same comment about HS_-prefixing. Perhaps GPIO_REG_HS_INTCOMB?
> +#define ENABLE_INT_COMB 1
> +#define DISABLE_INT_COMB 0
I don't really see a point in having these two macros defined. They are basically
just the boolean flags. Please see my next comment.
> +
> #define GPIO_INTMASK_V2 0x44
> #define GPIO_INTTYPE_LEVEL_V2 0x34
> #define GPIO_INT_POLARITY_V2 0x38
> @@ -354,6 +360,20 @@ static irqreturn_t dwapb_irq_handler_mfd(int irq, void *dev_id)
> return IRQ_RETVAL(dwapb_do_irq(dev_id));
> }
>
> +static void dwapb_enable_inq_combine(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, unsigned int enable)
inq_combine or int_combine?
"enable" is used here as boolean, then it should be declared as one.
> +{
> + u32 val;
> +
> + if (gpio->flags & GPIO_REG_INT_COMB) {
> + val = dwapb_read(gpio, GPIO_INTCOMB_MASK);
> + if (enable)
> + val |= BIT(0);
> + else
> + val &= BIT(0);
> + dwapb_write(gpio, GPIO_INTCOMB_MASK, val);
> + }
> +}
> +
Do you need to preserve the register content by using the read-modify-write procedure
here? If not, then inlining something like this should be fine:
if (gpio->flags & GPIO_REG_HS_INTCOMB)
dwapb_write(gpio, GPIO_HS_INTCOMB_MASK, 1);
> static void dwapb_configure_irqs(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio,
> struct dwapb_gpio_port *port,
> struct dwapb_port_property *pp)
> @@ -446,6 +466,8 @@ static void dwapb_configure_irqs(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio,
> irq_create_mapping(gpio->domain, hwirq);
>
> port->gc.to_irq = dwapb_gpio_to_irq;
> +
> + dwapb_enable_inq_combine(gpio, ENABLE_INT_COMB);
> }
>
> static void dwapb_irq_teardown(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio)
> @@ -618,6 +640,7 @@ static struct dwapb_platform_data *dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev)
> static const struct of_device_id dwapb_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "snps,dw-apb-gpio", .data = (void *)0},
> { .compatible = "apm,xgene-gpio-v2", .data = (void *)GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V2},
> + { .compatible = "hisi,ascend-gpio", .data = (void *)GPIO_REG_INT_COMB},
> { /* Sentinel */ }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dwapb_of_match);
> @@ -626,6 +649,7 @@ static struct dwapb_platform_data *dwapb_gpio_get_pdata(struct device *dev)
> {"HISI0181", 0},
> {"APMC0D07", 0},
> {"APMC0D81", GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V2},
> + {"HISI19XX", GPIO_REG_INT_COMB},
> { }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dwapb_acpi_match);
> @@ -713,6 +737,8 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> reset_control_assert(gpio->rst);
> clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(DWAPB_NR_CLOCKS, gpio->clks);
>
> + dwapb_enable_inq_combine(gpio, DISABLE_INT_COMB);
> +
> return 0;
> }
Note the dwapb_gpio_remove method will be discarded from the driver in the framework
of the next series: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-gpio/list/?series=193334
So if you really need to revert the GPIO_HS_INTCOMB_MASK flag setting, then
you'd need to create and register a dedicated devm-action (see 8 and 9 patch in
my series for example).
BTW Linus, could you take a look at my series? Andy and Rob have finished reviewing
it almost a month ago.
-Sergey
>
> @@ -794,6 +820,8 @@ static int dwapb_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
> dwapb_write(gpio, GPIO_INTEN, ctx->int_en);
> dwapb_write(gpio, GPIO_INTMASK, ctx->int_mask);
>
> + dwapb_enable_inq_combine(gpio, ENABLE_INT_COMB);
> +
> /* Clear out spurious interrupts */
> dwapb_write(gpio, GPIO_PORTA_EOI, 0xffffffff);
> }
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists