linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: Bind gpio_device to a driver to enable fw

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGETcx_FmOvLe4fN8ZZ_Kno-DnUy2DcPayk9Szmx2vrihr0KoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:16:25 -0800
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>,
        Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>,
        "kernel-team@...roid.com" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: Bind gpio_device to a driver to enable
 fw_devlink=on by default

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2021, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are multiple instances of GPIO device tree nodes of the form:
>>
>> foo {
>>         compatible = "acme,foo";
>>         ...
>>
>>         gpio0: gpio0@...xxxxx {
>>                 compatible = "acme,bar";
>>                 ...
>>                 gpio-controller;
>>         };
>>
>>         gpio1: gpio1@...xxxxx {
>>                 compatible = "acme,bar";
>>                 ...
>>                 gpio-controller;
>>         };
>>
>>         ...
>> }
>>
>> bazz {
>>         my-gpios = <&gpio0 ...>;
>> }
>>
>> Case 1: The driver for "foo" populates struct device for these gpio*
>> nodes and then probes them using a driver that binds with "acme,bar".
>> This driver for "acme,bar" then registers the gpio* nodes with gpiolib.
>> This lines up with how DT nodes with the "compatible" property are
>> typically converted to struct devices and then registered with driver
>> core to probe them. This also allows the gpio* devices to hook into all
>> the driver core capabilities like runtime PM, probe deferral,
>> suspend/resume ordering, device links, etc.
>>
>> Case 2: The driver for "foo" doesn't populate struct devices for these
>> gpio* nodes before registering them with gpiolib. Instead it just loops
>> through its child nodes and directly registers the gpio* nodes with
>> gpiolib.
>>
>> Drivers that follow case 2 cause problems with fw_devlink=on. This is
>> because fw_devlink will prevent bazz from probing until there's a struct
>> device that has gpio0 as its fwnode (because bazz lists gpio0 as a GPIO
>> supplier). Once the struct device is available, fw_devlink will create a
>> device link with gpio0 device as the supplier and bazz device as the
>> consumer. After this point, since the gpio0 device will never bind to a
>> driver, the device link will prevent bazz device from ever probing.
>>
>> Finding and refactoring all the instances of drivers that follow case 2
>> will cause a lot of code churn and it is not something that can be done
>> in one shot. In some instances it might not even be possible to refactor
>> them cleanly. Examples of such instances are [1] [2].
>>
>> This patch works around this problem and avoids all the code churn by
>> simply setting the fwnode of the gpio_device and creating a stub driver
>> to bind to the gpio_device. This allows all the consumers to continue
>> probing when the driver follows case 2.
>>
>
> Do we need to unregister it at __exit initcall?
> What side effects would be of the stub driver presence on the GPIO bus? Any traverse on it will work as before?

I checked. There is no __exit initcall.

-Saravana