| 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: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:38:40 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 (RESEND) 4/7] mfd: hi6421-spmi-pmic: move driver from
staging
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> This driver is ready for mainstream. So, move it out of staging.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> ---
> .../mfd/hisilicon,hi6421-spmi-pmic.yaml | 135 ++++++++
> MAINTAINERS | 7 +
> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 16 +
> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/mfd/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c | 297 ++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/staging/hikey9xx/Kconfig | 18 --
> drivers/staging/hikey9xx/Makefile | 1 -
> drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c | 297 ------------------
> .../hikey9xx/hisilicon,hi6421-spmi-pmic.yaml | 135 --------
> 9 files changed, 456 insertions(+), 451 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/hisilicon,hi6421-spmi-pmic.yaml
> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> delete mode 100644 drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> delete mode 100644 drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hisilicon,hi6421-spmi-pmic.yaml
[...]
> +config MFD_HI6421_SPMI
> + tristate "HiSilicon Hi6421v600 SPMI PMU/Codec IC"
> + depends on OF
> + depends on SPMI
> + select MFD_CORE
> + select REGMAP_SPMI
> + help
> + Add support for HiSilicon Hi6421v600 SPMI PMIC. Hi6421 includes
> + multi-functions, such as regulators, RTC, codec, Coulomb counter,
> + etc.
> +
> + This driver includes core APIs _only_. You have to select
> + individual components like voltage regulators under corresponding
> + menus in order to enable them.
> + We communicate with the Hi6421v600 via a SPMI bus.
> +
> config MFD_HI655X_PMIC
> tristate "HiSilicon Hi655X series PMU/Codec IC"
> depends on ARCH_HISI || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> index 4f6d2b8a5f76..e87230fc61ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_IPAQ_MICRO) += ipaq-micro.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_IQS62X) += iqs62x.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MENF21BMC) += menf21bmc.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_HI6421_PMIC) += hi6421-pmic-core.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_HI6421_SPMI) += hi6421-spmi-pmic.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_HI655X_PMIC) += hi655x-pmic.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_DLN2) += dln2.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_RT5033) += rt5033.o
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c b/drivers/mfd/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..626140cb96f2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,297 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Device driver for regulators in HISI PMIC IC
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2013 Linaro Ltd.
> + * Copyright (c) 2011 Hisilicon.
> + * Copyright (c) 2020-2021 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/irq.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/hi6421-spmi-pmic.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/spmi.h>
> +
> +enum hi6421_spmi_pmic_irq_list {
> + OTMP = 0,
> + VBUS_CONNECT,
> + VBUS_DISCONNECT,
> + ALARMON_R,
> + HOLD_6S,
> + HOLD_1S,
> + POWERKEY_UP,
> + POWERKEY_DOWN,
> + OCP_SCP_R,
> + COUL_R,
> + SIM0_HPD_R,
> + SIM0_HPD_F,
> + SIM1_HPD_R,
> + SIM1_HPD_F,
> + PMIC_IRQ_LIST_MAX,
> +};
> +
> +#define HISI_IRQ_ARRAY 2
> +#define HISI_IRQ_NUM (HISI_IRQ_ARRAY * 8)
What's 8?
This is also misleading, since there are only 14 IRQs.
> +#define HISI_IRQ_KEY_NUM 0
What's this please?
> +#define HISI_BITS 8
This is not great nomenclature.
What do the 'bits' represent?
> +#define HISI_IRQ_KEY_VALUE (BIT(POWERKEY_DOWN) | BIT(POWERKEY_UP))
This should probably be with the other HISI_IRQ_KEY* variable.
Along with a short comment on what an IRQ_KEY is.
> +#define HISI_MASK GENMASK(HISI_BITS - 1, 0)
Pair this with HISI_BITS and explain what there are 8 of.
> +/*
> + * The IRQs are mapped as:
> + *
> + * ====================== ============= ============ =====
> + * IRQ MASK REGISTER IRQ REGISTER BIT
> + * ====================== ============= ============ =====
> + * OTMP 0x0202 0x212 bit 0
> + * VBUS_CONNECT 0x0202 0x212 bit 1
> + * VBUS_DISCONNECT 0x0202 0x212 bit 2
> + * ALARMON_R 0x0202 0x212 bit 3
> + * HOLD_6S 0x0202 0x212 bit 4
> + * HOLD_1S 0x0202 0x212 bit 5
> + * POWERKEY_UP 0x0202 0x212 bit 6
> + * POWERKEY_DOWN 0x0202 0x212 bit 7
> + *
> + * OCP_SCP_R 0x0203 0x213 bit 0
> + * COUL_R 0x0203 0x213 bit 1
> + * SIM0_HPD_R 0x0203 0x213 bit 2
> + * SIM0_HPD_F 0x0203 0x213 bit 3
> + * SIM1_HPD_R 0x0203 0x213 bit 4
> + * SIM1_HPD_F 0x0203 0x213 bit 5
> + * ====================== ============= ============ =====
> + */
> +#define SOC_PMIC_IRQ_MASK_0_ADDR 0x0202
> +#define SOC_PMIC_IRQ0_ADDR 0x0212
Does IRQ handling not have a base?
If so, would it be worth passing the base to Regmap, instead of
mapping a large, mostly unused area?
> +#define IRQ_MASK_REGISTER(irq_data) (SOC_PMIC_IRQ_MASK_0_ADDR + \
> + (irqd_to_hwirq(irq_data) >> 3))
What's 3?
The naming of this macro makes it looks generic.
Please add some namespacing to clarify.
> +#define IRQ_MASK_BIT(irq_data) BIT(irqd_to_hwirq(irq_data) & 0x07)
More undocumented masks and bits.
> +static const struct mfd_cell hi6421v600_devs[] = {
> + { .name = "hi6421v600-regulator", },
> +};
Where are the rest of the devices?
> +static irqreturn_t hi6421_spmi_irq_handler(int irq, void *priv)
> +{
> + struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata = (struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *)priv;
> + unsigned long pending;
> + unsigned int in;
> + int i, offset;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < HISI_IRQ_ARRAY; i++) {
This is odd nomenclature.
Do these have another name in the datasheet? Bank maybe?
> + regmap_read(ddata->regmap, SOC_PMIC_IRQ0_ADDR + i, &in);
> + pending = HISI_MASK & in;
> + regmap_write(ddata->regmap, SOC_PMIC_IRQ0_ADDR + i, pending);
Unmasking for some reason? Comment please.
> + if (i == HISI_IRQ_KEY_NUM &&
> + (pending & HISI_IRQ_KEY_VALUE) == HISI_IRQ_KEY_VALUE) {
> + generic_handle_irq(ddata->irqs[POWERKEY_DOWN]);
Okay, so 'KEY' is actually 'POWERKEY'.
This should be made clear sooner.
> + generic_handle_irq(ddata->irqs[POWERKEY_UP]);
> + pending &= (~HISI_IRQ_KEY_VALUE);
> + }
Please document what's happening here.
> + if (!pending)
> + continue;
> +
> + for_each_set_bit(offset, &pending, HISI_BITS)
> + generic_handle_irq(ddata->irqs[offset + i * HISI_BITS]);
Bracketing?
Comments throughout would make this easier to follow.
> + }
> +
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static void hi6421_spmi_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned int data;
> + u32 offset;
> +
> + offset = IRQ_MASK_REGISTER(d);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ddata->lock, flags);
> +
> + regmap_read(ddata->regmap, offset, &data);
> + data |= IRQ_MASK_BIT(d);
> + regmap_write(ddata->regmap, offset, data);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ddata->lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static void hi6421_spmi_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> + u32 data, offset;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + offset = (irqd_to_hwirq(d) >> 3);
> + offset += SOC_PMIC_IRQ_MASK_0_ADDR;
IRQ_MASK_REGISTER() ?
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ddata->lock, flags);
> +
> + regmap_read(ddata->regmap, offset, &data);
> + data &= ~(1 << (irqd_to_hwirq(d) & 0x07));
BIT()?
What does the 0x07 mask represent?
> + regmap_write(ddata->regmap, offset, data);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ddata->lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static struct irq_chip hi6421_spmi_pmu_irqchip = {
> + .name = "hisi-irq",
<vendor>-irq is very generic.
Can we be more specific?
> + .irq_mask = hi6421_spmi_irq_mask,
> + .irq_unmask = hi6421_spmi_irq_unmask,
> + .irq_disable = hi6421_spmi_irq_mask,
> + .irq_enable = hi6421_spmi_irq_unmask,
> +};
> +
> +static int hi6421_spmi_irq_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int virq,
> + irq_hw_number_t hw)
> +{
> + struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata = d->host_data;
> +
> + irq_set_chip_and_handler_name(virq, &hi6421_spmi_pmu_irqchip,
> + handle_simple_irq, "hisi");
<vendor> is very generic.
> + irq_set_chip_data(virq, ddata);
> + irq_set_irq_type(virq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct irq_domain_ops hi6421_spmi_domain_ops = {
> + .map = hi6421_spmi_irq_map,
> + .xlate = irq_domain_xlate_twocell,
> +};
> +
> +static void hi6421_spmi_pmic_irq_init(struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata)
> +{
> + int i;
> + unsigned int pending;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < HISI_IRQ_ARRAY; i++)
> + regmap_write(ddata->regmap, SOC_PMIC_IRQ_MASK_0_ADDR + i,
> + HISI_MASK);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < HISI_IRQ_ARRAY; i++) {
> + regmap_read(ddata->regmap, SOC_PMIC_IRQ0_ADDR + i, &pending);
> + regmap_write(ddata->regmap, SOC_PMIC_IRQ0_ADDR + i,
> + HISI_MASK);
> + }
Comments please?
Why do these loops need to be separate?
> +}
> +
> +static const struct regmap_config regmap_config = {
> + .reg_bits = 16,
> + .val_bits = HISI_BITS,
> + .max_register = 0xffff,
Do you need to map from 0 to 0xffff?
> + .fast_io = true
> +};
> +
> +static int hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe(struct spmi_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> + struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata;
> + unsigned int virq;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + ddata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ddata), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ddata)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + ddata->regmap = devm_regmap_init_spmi_ext(pdev, ®map_config);
> + if (IS_ERR(ddata->regmap))
> + return PTR_ERR(ddata->regmap);
> +
> + spin_lock_init(&ddata->lock);
> +
> + ddata->dev = dev;
> +
> + ddata->gpio = of_get_gpio(np, 0);
> + if (ddata->gpio < 0)
> + return ddata->gpio;
> +
> + if (!gpio_is_valid(ddata->gpio))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ret = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, ddata->gpio, GPIOF_IN, "pmic");
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to request gpio%d\n", ddata->gpio);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ddata->irq = gpio_to_irq(ddata->gpio);
> +
> + hi6421_spmi_pmic_irq_init(ddata);
> +
> + ddata->irqs = devm_kzalloc(dev, HISI_IRQ_NUM * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ddata->irqs)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + ddata->domain = irq_domain_add_simple(np, HISI_IRQ_NUM, 0,
> + &hi6421_spmi_domain_ops, ddata);
> + if (!ddata->domain) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to create IRQ domain\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < HISI_IRQ_NUM; i++) {
> + virq = irq_create_mapping(ddata->domain, i);
What happens when this requests IRQ 15 and 16?
> + if (!virq) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to map H/W IRQ\n");
> + return -ENOSPC;
> + }
> + ddata->irqs[i] = virq;
> + }
> +
> + ret = request_threaded_irq(ddata->irq, hi6421_spmi_irq_handler, NULL,
> + IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_NO_SUSPEND,
> + "pmic", ddata);
Is this the only 'pmic' on the platform?
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to start IRQ handling thread: error %d\n",
> + ret);
Does checkpatch complain if this is just one long line?
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, ddata);
> +
> + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> + hi6421v600_devs, ARRAY_SIZE(hi6421v600_devs),
> + NULL, 0, NULL);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to add child devices: %d\n", ret);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void hi6421_spmi_pmic_remove(struct spmi_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct hi6421_spmi_pmic *ddata = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
> +
> + free_irq(ddata->irq, ddata);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id pmic_spmi_id_table[] = {
> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hi6421-spmi" },
> + { }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pmic_spmi_id_table);
> +
> +static struct spmi_driver hi6421_spmi_pmic_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "hi6421-spmi-pmic",
Odd spacing. Does this line up with the other '='?
> + .of_match_table = pmic_spmi_id_table,
> + },
> + .probe = hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe,
> + .remove = hi6421_spmi_pmic_remove,
> +};
> +module_spmi_driver(hi6421_spmi_pmic_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("HiSilicon Hi6421v600 SPMI PMIC driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists