linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] leds: simatic-ipc-leds: add new driver for Siemens Industial PCs

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

Message-ID: <20210330135808.373c3308@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net>
Date:   Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:58:08 +0200
From:   Henning Schild <henning.schild@...mens.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        Srikanth Krishnakar <skrishnakar@...il.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Gerd Haeussler <gerd.haeussler.ext@...mens.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] leds: simatic-ipc-leds: add new driver for
 Siemens Industial PCs

Am Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:04:35 +0300
schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:

> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:59 PM Henning Schild
> <henning.schild@...mens.com> wrote:
> >
> > This driver adds initial support for several devices from Siemens.
> > It is based on a platform driver introduced in an earlier commit.  
> 
> ...
> 
> > +#define SIMATIC_IPC_LED_PORT_BASE      0x404E  
> 
> > +static struct simatic_ipc_led simatic_ipc_leds_io[] = {
> > +       {1 << 15, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1" },
> > +       {1 << 7,  "yellow:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1" },
> > +       {1 << 14, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2" },
> > +       {1 << 6,  "yellow:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2" },
> > +       {1 << 13, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3" },
> > +       {1 << 5,  "yellow:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3" },
> > +       { }
> > +};  
> 
> > +static struct simatic_ipc_led simatic_ipc_leds_mem[] = {
> > +       {0x500 + 0x1A0, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"},
> > +       {0x500 + 0x1A8, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"},
> > +       {0x500 + 0x1C8, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"},
> > +       {0x500 + 0x1D0, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"},
> > +       {0x500 + 0x1E0, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"},
> > +       {0x500 + 0x198, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"},
> > +       { }
> > +};  
> 
> It seems to me like poking GPIO controller registers directly. This
> is not good. The question still remains: Can we simply register a
> GPIO (pin control) driver and use an LED GPIO driver with an
> additional board file that instantiates it?

I wrote about that in reply to the cover letter. My view is still that
it would be an abstraction with only one user, just causing work and
likely not ending up as generic as it might eventually have to be.

The region is reserved, not sure what the problem with the "poking" is.

Maybe i do not understand all the benefits of such a split at this
point in time. At the moment i only see work with hardly any benefit,
not just work for me but also for maintainers. I sure do not mean to be
ignorant. Maybe you go into details and convince me or we wait for other
peoples opinions on how to proceed, maybe there is a second user that i
am not aware of?
Until i am convinced otherwise i will try to argue that a
single-user-abstraction is needless work/code, and should be done only
when actually needed.

regards,
Henning