| 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: <20210415065848.xgisi5cpcxvnxzb4@uno.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:58:48 +0200
From: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] media: i2c: max9286: Use "maxim,gpio-poc" property
Hi Laurent,
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:00:56AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:51:25PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > The 'maxim,gpio-poc' property is used when the remote camera
> > power-over-coax is controlled by one of the MAX9286 gpio lines,
> > to instruct the driver about which line to use and what the line
> > polarity is.
> >
> > Add to the max9286 driver support for parsing the newly introduce
> s/introduce/introduced/
>
> > property and use it if available in place of the usual supply, as it is
> > not possible to establish one as consumer of the max9286 gpio
> > controller.
> >
> > If the new property is present, no gpio controller is registered and
> > 'poc-supply' is ignored.
> >
> > In order to maximize code re-use, break out the max9286 gpio handling
> > function so that they can be used by the gpio controller through the
> > gpio-consumer API, or directly by the driver code.
> >
> > Wrap the power up and power down routines to their own function to
> > be able to use either the gpio line directly or the supply. This will
> > make it easier to control the remote camera power at run time.
>
> I would have split the patch in two, with a first patch that refactors
> the code, and a second one that extends it, but that's no big deal.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c b/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c
> > index 6fd4d59fcc72..0c125f7b3d9b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > #include <linux/fwnode.h>
> > #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> > #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> > +#include <linux/gpio/machine.h>
> > #include <linux/i2c.h>
> > #include <linux/i2c-mux.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > @@ -165,6 +166,9 @@ struct max9286_priv {
> >
> > u32 reverse_channel_mv;
> >
> > + u32 gpio_poc;
> > + u32 gpio_poc_flags;
> > +
> > struct v4l2_ctrl_handler ctrls;
> > struct v4l2_ctrl *pixelrate;
> >
> > @@ -1022,20 +1026,27 @@ static int max9286_setup(struct max9286_priv *priv)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static void max9286_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> > - unsigned int offset, int value)
> > +static int max9286_gpio_set(struct max9286_priv *priv, unsigned int offset,
> > + int value)
> > {
> > - struct max9286_priv *priv = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> > -
> > if (value)
> > priv->gpio_state |= BIT(offset);
> > else
> > priv->gpio_state &= ~BIT(offset);
> >
> > - max9286_write(priv, 0x0f, MAX9286_0X0F_RESERVED | priv->gpio_state);
> > + return max9286_write(priv, 0x0f,
> > + MAX9286_0X0F_RESERVED | priv->gpio_state);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void max9286_gpiochip_set(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> > + unsigned int offset, int value)
> > +{
> > + struct max9286_priv *priv = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> > +
> > + max9286_gpio_set(priv, offset, value);
> > }
> >
> > -static int max9286_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> > +static int max9286_gpiochip_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
> > {
> > struct max9286_priv *priv = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> >
> > @@ -1055,8 +1066,8 @@ static int max9286_register_gpio(struct max9286_priv *priv)
> > gpio->of_node = dev->of_node;
> > gpio->ngpio = 2;
> > gpio->base = -1;
> > - gpio->set = max9286_gpio_set;
> > - gpio->get = max9286_gpio_get;
> > + gpio->set = max9286_gpiochip_set;
> > + gpio->get = max9286_gpiochip_get;
> > gpio->can_sleep = true;
> >
> > /* GPIO values default to high */
> > @@ -1069,6 +1080,75 @@ static int max9286_register_gpio(struct max9286_priv *priv)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int max9286_parse_gpios(struct max9286_priv *priv)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
> > + u32 gpio_poc[2];
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Parse the "gpio-poc" vendor property. If the camera power is
> > + * controlled by one of the MAX9286 gpio lines, do not register
> > + * the gpio controller and ignore 'poc-supply'.
> > + */
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node,
> > + "maxim,gpio-poc", gpio_poc, 2);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + priv->gpio_poc = gpio_poc[0];
> > + priv->gpio_poc_flags = gpio_poc[1];
> > + if ((priv->gpio_poc != 0 && priv->gpio_poc != 1) ||
>
> You could simply test priv->gpio_poc > 1.
>
> > + (priv->gpio_poc_flags != GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH &&
> > + priv->gpio_poc_flags != GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW)) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Invalid 'gpio-poc': (%u %u)\n",
> > + priv->gpio_poc, priv->gpio_poc_flags);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* GPIO values default to high */
> > + priv->gpio_state = BIT(0) | BIT(1);
>
> Why is that ?
>
As the set/get functions of gpiochip use the gpio_state and I wanted
to use the same functions for the internal gpio handling I used
gpio_state in gpio_set(). My thinking was that in this way altering
the gpio line would be visibile to gpio consumers... which we don't
have as I won't register the gpio-controller :)
> > + priv->regulator = NULL;
>
> As priv is initialized to 0, you can skip this.
>
Yes, I liked it explicit as it is used as flag, but it is not
required...
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = max9286_register_gpio(priv);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + priv->regulator = devm_regulator_get(dev, "poc");
> > + if (IS_ERR(priv->regulator)) {
> > + if (PTR_ERR(priv->regulator) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > + dev_err(dev, "Unable to get PoC regulator (%ld)\n",
> > + PTR_ERR(priv->regulator));
> > + return PTR_ERR(priv->regulator);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int max9286_poc_enable(struct max9286_priv *priv, bool enable)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* If "poc-gpio" is used, toggle the line and do not use regulator. */
> > + if (!priv->regulator)
> > + return max9286_gpio_set(priv, priv->gpio_poc,
> > + enable ^ priv->gpio_poc_flags);
> > +
> > + /* Otherwise PoC is controlled using a regulator. */
> > + if (enable) {
> > + ret = regulator_enable(priv->regulator);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(&priv->client->dev, "Unable to turn PoC on\n");
>
> As error message when max9286_gpio_set() fails (at least in the enable
> case) would be good too. Bonus points if there's a single dev_err()
> call.
>
I'll see how it looks like
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return regulator_disable(priv->regulator);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int max9286_init(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct max9286_priv *priv;
> > @@ -1078,17 +1158,14 @@ static int max9286_init(struct device *dev)
> > client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > priv = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >
> > - /* Enable the bus power. */
> > - ret = regulator_enable(priv->regulator);
> > - if (ret < 0) {
> > - dev_err(&client->dev, "Unable to turn PoC on\n");
> > + ret = max9286_poc_enable(priv, true);
> > + if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > - }
> >
> > ret = max9286_setup(priv);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Unable to setup max9286\n");
> > - goto err_regulator;
> > + goto err_poc_disable;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1098,7 +1175,7 @@ static int max9286_init(struct device *dev)
> > ret = max9286_v4l2_register(priv);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Failed to register with V4L2\n");
> > - goto err_regulator;
> > + goto err_poc_disable;
> > }
> >
> > ret = max9286_i2c_mux_init(priv);
> > @@ -1114,8 +1191,8 @@ static int max9286_init(struct device *dev)
> >
> > err_v4l2_register:
> > max9286_v4l2_unregister(priv);
> > -err_regulator:
> > - regulator_disable(priv->regulator);
> > +err_poc_disable:
> > + max9286_poc_enable(priv, false);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> > @@ -1286,20 +1363,10 @@ static int max9286_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > */
> > max9286_configure_i2c(priv, false);
> >
> > - ret = max9286_register_gpio(priv);
> > + ret = max9286_parse_gpios(priv);
> > if (ret)
> > goto err_powerdown;
> >
> > - priv->regulator = devm_regulator_get(&client->dev, "poc");
> > - if (IS_ERR(priv->regulator)) {
> > - if (PTR_ERR(priv->regulator) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > - dev_err(&client->dev,
> > - "Unable to get PoC regulator (%ld)\n",
> > - PTR_ERR(priv->regulator));
> > - ret = PTR_ERR(priv->regulator);
> > - goto err_powerdown;
> > - }
> > -
> > ret = max9286_parse_dt(priv);
> > if (ret)
> > goto err_powerdown;
> > @@ -1326,7 +1393,7 @@ static int max9286_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >
> > max9286_v4l2_unregister(priv);
> >
> > - regulator_disable(priv->regulator);
> > + max9286_poc_enable(priv, false);
> >
> > gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->gpiod_pwdn, 0);
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists