| 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: <CACG_h5q6P5NiNByttQ-NZvq8x3GCTKfSU=Yyywk7PcO6_=i2Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:45:52 +0530
From: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc: Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Goud <sgoud@...inx.com>,
Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] gpio: xilinx: Utilize generic bitmap_get_value and _set_value
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:56 PM Srinivas Neeli <sneeli@...inx.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:58 PM
> > To: Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>
> > Cc: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>; Srinivas Neeli
> > <sneeli@...inx.com>; Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>; William Breathitt Gray
> > <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>; Robert
> > Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>; Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>;
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>; Andrew Morton
> > <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>; Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>; Daniel
> > Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>; Amit Kucheria
> > <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>; Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>;
> > linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>; LKML <linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org>; arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>;
> > linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>; Srinivas Goud <sgoud@...inx.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] gpio: xilinx: Utilize generic bitmap_get_value and
> > _set_value
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:13 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/6/21 3:06 PM, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote:
> > > > This patch reimplements the xgpio_set_multiple() function in
> > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c to use the new generic functions:
> > > > bitmap_get_value() and bitmap_set_value(). The code is now simpler
> > > > to read and understand. Moreover, instead of looping for each bit in
> > > > xgpio_set_multiple() function, now we can check each channel at a
> > > > time and save cycles.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > > > Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>
> > > > Acked-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c | 63
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c
> > > > index be539381fd82..8445e69cf37b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c
> > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/of_device.h>
> > > > #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > +#include "gpiolib.h"
> > > >
> > > > /* Register Offset Definitions */
> > > > #define XGPIO_DATA_OFFSET (0x0) /* Data register */
> > > > @@ -141,37 +142,37 @@ static void xgpio_set_multiple(struct
> > > > gpio_chip *gc, unsigned long *mask, {
> > > > unsigned long flags;
> > > > struct xgpio_instance *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > > > - int index = xgpio_index(chip, 0);
> > > > - int offset, i;
> > > > -
> > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&chip->gpio_lock[index], flags);
> > > > -
> > > > - /* Write to GPIO signals */
> > > > - for (i = 0; i < gc->ngpio; i++) {
> > > > - if (*mask == 0)
> > > > - break;
> > > > - /* Once finished with an index write it out to the register */
> > > > - if (index != xgpio_index(chip, i)) {
> > > > - xgpio_writereg(chip->regs + XGPIO_DATA_OFFSET +
> > > > - index * XGPIO_CHANNEL_OFFSET,
> > > > - chip->gpio_state[index]);
> > > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chip->gpio_lock[index], flags);
> > > > - index = xgpio_index(chip, i);
> > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&chip->gpio_lock[index], flags);
> > > > - }
> > > > - if (__test_and_clear_bit(i, mask)) {
> > > > - offset = xgpio_offset(chip, i);
> > > > - if (test_bit(i, bits))
> > > > - chip->gpio_state[index] |= BIT(offset);
> > > > - else
> > > > - chip->gpio_state[index] &= ~BIT(offset);
> > > > - }
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > - xgpio_writereg(chip->regs + XGPIO_DATA_OFFSET +
> > > > - index * XGPIO_CHANNEL_OFFSET, chip->gpio_state[index]);
> > > > -
> > > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chip->gpio_lock[index], flags);
> > > > + u32 *const state = chip->gpio_state;
> > > > + unsigned int *const width = chip->gpio_width;
> > > > +
> > > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(old, 64);
> > > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(new, 64);
> > > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(changed, 64);
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&chip->gpio_lock[0], flags);
> > > > + spin_lock(&chip->gpio_lock[1]);
> > > > +
> > > > + bitmap_set_value(old, 64, state[0], width[0], 0);
> > > > + bitmap_set_value(old, 64, state[1], width[1], width[0]);
> > > > + bitmap_replace(new, old, bits, mask, gc->ngpio);
> > > > +
> > > > + bitmap_set_value(old, 64, state[0], 32, 0);
> > > > + bitmap_set_value(old, 64, state[1], 32, 32);
> > > > + state[0] = bitmap_get_value(new, 0, width[0]);
> > > > + state[1] = bitmap_get_value(new, width[0], width[1]);
> > > > + bitmap_set_value(new, 64, state[0], 32, 0);
> > > > + bitmap_set_value(new, 64, state[1], 32, 32);
> > > > + bitmap_xor(changed, old, new, 64);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (((u32 *)changed)[0])
> > > > + xgpio_writereg(chip->regs + XGPIO_DATA_OFFSET,
> > > > + state[0]);
> > > > + if (((u32 *)changed)[1])
> > > > + xgpio_writereg(chip->regs + XGPIO_DATA_OFFSET +
> > > > + XGPIO_CHANNEL_OFFSET, state[1]);
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_unlock(&chip->gpio_lock[1]);
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chip->gpio_lock[0], flags);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > >
> > >
> > > Srinivas N: Can you please test this code?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michal
> >
> > Hey, any chance of getting that Tested-by?
> I tested patches with few modifications in code (spin_lock handling and merge conflict).
> functionality wise it's working fine.
>
> >
> > Bart
Hi Bartosz,
May I please know the URL of the tree that you are using. I had been
using the tree below for submitting this patchset on GPIO to you.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git
I think I am using the wrong tree. On which tree should I base my
patches on for my next (v4) submission? Should I use the tree below?
:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brgl/linux.git
Regards
Syed Nayyar Waris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists