| 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: <7c424d83-f96b-4b0c-1fbb-b3ec7ef6f07d@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:49:37 +0800
From: "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, lee.jones@...aro.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, andriy.shevchenko@...el.com,
songjun.Wu@...el.com, cheol.yong.kim@...el.com,
qi-ming.wu@...el.com, rahul.tanwar.linux@...il.com,
rtanwar@...linear.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] Add PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC
Hi Uwe,
Thanks for review & feedback.
On 24/9/2020 2:55 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (hhm Thierry already announced to have taken this patch, so my review is
> late.)
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:23:37PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
>> Intel Lightning Mountain(LGM) SoC contains a PWM fan controller.
>> This PWM controller does not have any other consumer, it is a
>> dedicated PWM controller for fan attached to the system. Add
>> driver for this PWM fan controller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pwm/Kconfig | 11 ++
>> drivers/pwm/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c | 246 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 258 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> index 7dbcf6973d33..4949c51fe90b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> @@ -232,6 +232,17 @@ config PWM_IMX_TPM
>> To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>> will be called pwm-imx-tpm.
>>
>> +config PWM_INTEL_LGM
>> + tristate "Intel LGM PWM support"
>> + depends on HAS_IOMEM
>> + depends on (OF && X86) || COMPILE_TEST
>> + select REGMAP_MMIO
>> + help
>> + Generic PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC.
>> +
>> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>> + will be called pwm-intel-lgm.
>> +
>> config PWM_IQS620A
>> tristate "Azoteq IQS620A PWM support"
>> depends on MFD_IQS62X || COMPILE_TEST
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> index 2c2ba0a03557..e9431b151694 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMG) += pwm-img.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX1) += pwm-imx1.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX27) += pwm-imx27.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IMX_TPM) += pwm-imx-tpm.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_INTEL_LGM) += pwm-intel-lgm.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_IQS620A) += pwm-iqs620a.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_JZ4740) += pwm-jz4740.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_LP3943) += pwm-lp3943.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..ea3df75a5971
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-intel-lgm.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Intel Corporation.
>> + *
>> + * Limitations:
>> + * - The hardware supports fixed period which is dependent on 2/3 or 4
>> + * wire fan mode.
> The driver now hardcodes 2-wire mode. IMHO that is worth mentioning.
Will update.
>> +static void lgm_clk_disable(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc = data;
>> +
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(pc->clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lgm_clk_enable(struct device *dev, struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(pc->clk);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, lgm_clk_disable, pc);
>> +}
> My first reflex here was to point out that lgm_clk_disable() isn't the
> counter part to lgm_clk_enable() and so lgm_clk_disable() needs
> adaption. On a second look this is correct and so I think the function
> names are wrong. The usual naming would be to use _release instead of
> _disable. Having said that the enable function could be named
> devm_clk_enable and live in drivers/clk/clk-devres.c. (Or
> devm_clk_get_enabled()?)
Will change function name from _disable to _release. But i think addition
of a generic devm_clk_enable in drivers/clk/clk-devres.c can be taken as
a separate task in a future patch (not clubbed with this driver)..
>> +static void lgm_reset_control_assert(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc = data;
>> +
>> + reset_control_assert(pc->rst);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int lgm_reset_control_deassert(struct device *dev, struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = reset_control_deassert(pc->rst);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, lgm_reset_control_assert, pc);
>> +}
> A similar comment applies here.
>
>> +static int lgm_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + struct lgm_pwm_chip *pc;
>> + void __iomem *io_base;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + pc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!pc)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
>> +
>> + io_base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
>> + if (IS_ERR(io_base))
>> + return PTR_ERR(io_base);
>> +
>> + pc->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev, io_base, &lgm_pwm_regmap_config);
>> + if (IS_ERR(pc->regmap))
>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->regmap),
>> + "failed to init register map\n");
>> +
>> + pc->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
>> + if (IS_ERR(pc->clk))
>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->clk), "failed to get clock\n");
>> +
>> + ret = lgm_clk_enable(dev, pc);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clock\n");
> You used dev_err_probe four times for six error paths. I wonder why you
> didn't use it here (and below for a failing pwmchip_add()).
Well noted, will update.
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pc->rst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
>> + if (IS_ERR(pc->rst))
>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(pc->rst),
>> + "failed to get reset control\n");
>> +
>> + ret = lgm_reset_control_deassert(dev, pc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "cannot deassert reset control\n");
> After lgm_reset_control_deassert is called pc->rst is unused. So there
> is no need to have this member in struct lgm_pwm_chip. The same applies
> to ->clk. (You have to pass rst (or clk) to devm_add_action_or_reset for
> that to work. Looks like a nice idea anyhow.)
Agreed, will update.
>> + pc->chip.dev = dev;
>> + pc->chip.ops = &lgm_pwm_ops;
>> + pc->chip.npwm = 1;
> pc->chip.base should probably be set to -1.
Got it, will update. Thanks.
Regards,
Rahul
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists