| 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, 22 Feb 2021 16:58:09 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>, me@...wu.ch,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...ica.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] platform/x86: Add intel_skl_int3472 driver
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:12 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com> wrote:
>
> ACPI devices with _HID INT3472 are currently matched to the tps68470
> driver, however this does not cover all situations in which that _HID
> occurs. We've encountered three possibilities:
>
> 1. On Chrome OS devices, an ACPI device with _HID INT3472 (representing
> a physical TPS68470 device) that requires a GPIO and OpRegion driver
> 2. On devices designed for Windows, an ACPI device with _HID INT3472
> (again representing a physical TPS68470 device) which requires GPIO,
> Clock and Regulator drivers.
> 3. On other devices designed for Windows, an ACPI device with _HID
> INT3472 which does **not** represent a physical TPS68470, and is instead
> used as a dummy device to group some system GPIO lines which are meant
> to be consumed by the sensor that is dependent on this entry.
>
> This commit adds a new module, registering a platform driver to deal
> with the 3rd scenario plus an i2c driver to deal with #1 and #2, by
> querying the CLDB buffer found against INT3472 entries to determine
> which is most appropriate.
Can you split CLK parts (and maybe regulators as well) to something
like intel_skl_int3472_clk.c?
...
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> + dev_err(&adev->dev, "%s object is not an ACPI buffer\n", id);
Perhaps acpi_handle_err() et al. instead of dev_*(&adev->dev, ...)
where it's applicable?
...
> + if (obj->buffer.length > sizeof(*cldb)) {
> + dev_err(&adev->dev, "The CLDB buffer is too large\n");
> + ret = -EINVAL;
ENOSPC? ENOMEM?
> + goto out_free_obj;
> + }
...
> +static int skl_int3472_init(void)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
Redundant assignment.
> + ret = platform_driver_register(&int3472_discrete);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = i2c_register_driver(THIS_MODULE, &int3472_tps68470);
> + if (ret)
> + platform_driver_unregister(&int3472_discrete);
Not a fan of the above, but let's see what others will say...
> + return ret;
> +}
> +module_init(skl_int3472_init);
...
> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
This is definitely not for *.h. (Not all C files needed this)
> +#include <linux/gpio/machine.h>
Ditto.
> +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
Ditto.
...
> +/*
> + * 79234640-9e10-4fea-a5c1-b5aa8b19756f
> + * This _DSM GUID returns information about the GPIO lines mapped to a
> + * discrete INT3472 device. Function number 1 returns a count of the GPIO
> + * lines that are mapped. Subsequent functions return 32 bit ints encoding
> + * information about the GPIO line, including its purpose.
> + */
> +static const guid_t int3472_gpio_guid =
> + GUID_INIT(0x79234640, 0x9e10, 0x4fea,
> + 0xa5, 0xc1, 0xb5, 0xaa, 0x8b, 0x19, 0x75, 0x6f);
uuid.h ?
...
> +/*
> + * The regulators have to have .ops to be valid, but the only ops we actually
> + * support are .enable and .disable which are handled via .ena_gpiod. Pass an
> + * empty struct to clear the check without lying about capabilities.
> + */
> +static const struct regulator_ops int3472_gpio_regulator_ops = { 0 };
{ 0 } is implied by the static keyword and C standard.
...
> +static int skl_int3472_clk_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + struct int3472_gpio_clock *clk = to_int3472_clk(hw);
> +
> + gpiod_set_value(clk->ena_gpio, 1);
> + if (clk->led_gpio)
Make it optional and drop this check. Same for other places of use of this GPIO.
> + gpiod_set_value(clk->led_gpio, 1);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> +static int skl_int3472_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + /*
> + * We're just turning a GPIO on to enable, which operation has the
> + * potential to sleep. Given enable cannot sleep, but prepare can,
> + * we toggle the GPIO in prepare instead. Thus, nothing to do here.
> + */
Missed . and / or () in some words? (Describing callbacks, personally
I use the form "->callback()" in such cases)
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> +static unsigned int skl_int3472_get_clk_frequency(struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472)
> +{
> + union acpi_object *obj;
> + unsigned int ret = 0;
unsigned for ret is unusual. Looking into the code, first of all it
doesn't need this assignment; second, it probably can gain a better
name: "frequency"?
> + obj = skl_int3472_get_acpi_buffer(int3472->sensor, "SSDB");
> + if (IS_ERR(obj))
> + return 0; /* report rate as 0 on error */
> +
> + if (obj->buffer.length < CIO2_SENSOR_SSDB_MCLKSPEED_OFFSET + sizeof(u32)) {
> + dev_err(int3472->dev, "The buffer is too small\n");
> + goto out_free_buff;
> + }
> +
> + ret = *(u32 *)(obj->buffer.pointer + CIO2_SENSOR_SSDB_MCLKSPEED_OFFSET);
> +
> +out_free_buff:
> + kfree(obj);
> + return ret;
> +}
...
> + sensor_config = int3472->sensor_config;
> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sensor_config) && sensor_config->function_maps) {
Hmm...
Would
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sensor_config))
return 0;
if (!_maps)
return 0;
with respective comments working here?
> + const struct int3472_gpio_function_remap *remap =
> + sensor_config->function_maps;
Split assignment so we can see what is the initial for-loop iterator value.
> + for (; remap->documented; ++remap)
remap++
> + if (!strcmp(func, remap->documented)) {
> + func = remap->actual;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Functions mapped to NULL should not be mapped to the sensor */
> + if (!func)
> + return 0;
...
> +static int skl_int3472_register_clock(struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472)
> +{
> + struct clk_init_data init = {
> + .ops = &skl_int3472_clock_ops,
> + .flags = CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE,
> + };
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + init.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s-clk",
> + acpi_dev_name(int3472->adev));
devm_*() ? Or is the lifetime different?
> + if (!init.name)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + int3472->clock.frequency = skl_int3472_get_clk_frequency(int3472);
> +
> + int3472->clock.clk_hw.init = &init;
> + int3472->clock.clk = clk_register(&int3472->adev->dev,
> + &int3472->clock.clk_hw);
> + if (IS_ERR(int3472->clock.clk)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(int3472->clock.clk);
> + goto out_free_init_name;
> + }
> +
> + int3472->clock.cl = clkdev_create(int3472->clock.clk, NULL,
> + int3472->sensor_name);
> + if (!int3472->clock.cl) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err_unregister_clk;
> + }
> +
> + goto out_free_init_name;
> +
> +err_unregister_clk:
> + clk_unregister(int3472->clock.clk);
> +out_free_init_name:
> + kfree(init.name);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
...
> + sensor_config = int3472->sensor_config;
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sensor_config)) {
> + dev_err(int3472->dev, "No sensor module config\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(sensor_config);
NULL -> 0. Is it okay?
> + }
...
> + int ret = 0;
Seems redundant assignment.
...
> + if (ares->type != ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_GPIO ||
> + ares->data.gpio.connection_type != ACPI_RESOURCE_GPIO_TYPE_IO)
> + return 1; /* Deliberately positive so parsing continues */
I don't like to lose control over ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_GPIO, i.e.
spreading it over kernel code (yes, I know about one existing TS
case).
Consider to provide a helper in analogue to acpi_gpio_get_irq_resource().
...
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + dev_err(int3472->dev, err_msg);
dev_err_probe() will make the above conditional go away. And you may even do...
> + int3472->n_gpios++;
> + ACPI_FREE(obj);
> + return ret;
...here
return dev_err_probe(...);
...
> + struct list_head resource_list;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resource_list);
LIST_HEAD(resource_list);
will do two in one.
...
> + if (int3472->clock.ena_gpio) {
Not sure you need this here.
> + ret = skl_int3472_register_clock(int3472);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_free_res_list;
> + } else {
> + if (int3472->clock.led_gpio)
Ditto.
> + dev_warn(int3472->dev,
> + "No clk GPIO. The privacy LED won't work\n");
> + }
...
> + /* Max num GPIOs we've seen plus a terminator */
> + int3472 = kzalloc(struct_size(int3472, gpios.table,
> + INT3472_MAX_SENSOR_GPIOS + 1), GFP_KERNEL);
Wonder of you can use devm_*() APIs in this function.
> + if (!int3472)
> + return -ENOMEM;
...
> + int3472->sensor = acpi_dev_get_dependent_dev(adev);
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(int3472->sensor)) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> + "INT3472 seems to have no dependents.\n");
> + ret = -ENODEV;
Don't shadow error code when you got IS_ERR() case.
> + goto err_free_int3472;
> + }
...
> +int skl_int3472_discrete_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472 = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + if (int3472->gpios.dev_id)
> + gpiod_remove_lookup_table(&int3472->gpios);
gpiod_remove_lookup_table() is now NULL-aware.
But in any case I guess you don't need the above check.
> + if (!IS_ERR(int3472->regulator.rdev))
> + regulator_unregister(int3472->regulator.rdev);
Shouldn't it be the pointer to the regulator itself?
> + if (!IS_ERR(int3472->clock.clk))
If you get it optional, you won't need this additional check.
> + clk_unregister(int3472->clock.clk);
> +
> + if (int3472->clock.cl)
> + clkdev_drop(int3472->clock.cl);
> +
> + gpiod_put(int3472->regulator.gpio);
> + gpiod_put(int3472->clock.ena_gpio);
> + gpiod_put(int3472->clock.led_gpio);
> +
> + acpi_dev_put(int3472->sensor);
> +
> + kfree(int3472->sensor_name);
> + kfree(int3472);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> + ret = skl_int3472_fill_cldb(adev, &cldb);
> + if (!ret && cldb.control_logic_type != 2) {
> + dev_err(&client->dev, "Unsupported control logic type %u\n",
> + cldb.control_logic_type);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (ret)
> + cldb_present = false;
if (ret)
...
else if (...) {
...
return ...;
}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists