| 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: Thu, 20 May 2021 15:00:35 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-power@...rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: regmap: Support few IC specific operations
On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 13:42 +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> Hi Matti,
>
> Am 2021-05-20 13:28, schrieb Matti Vaittinen:
> > The set_config and init_valid_mask GPIO operations are usually very
> > IC
> > specific. Allow IC drivers to provide these custom operations at
> > gpio-regmap registration.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c | 49
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/gpio/regmap.h | 13 ++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-
> > regmap.c
> > index 134cedf151a7..315285cacd3f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c
> > @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ struct gpio_regmap {
> > int (*reg_mask_xlate)(struct gpio_regmap *gpio, unsigned int
> > base,
> > unsigned int offset, unsigned int *reg,
> > unsigned int *mask);
> > + int (*set_config)(struct regmap *regmap, void *drvdata,
> > + unsigned int offset, unsigned long config);
> > + int (*init_valid_mask)(struct regmap *regmap, void *drvdata,
> > + unsigned long *valid_mask, unsigned int
> > ngpios);
>
> Maybe we should also make the first argument a "struct gpio_regmap"
> and provide a new gpio_regmap_get_regmap(struct gpio_regmap). Thus
> having a similar api as for the reg_mask_xlate(). Andy?
I don't really see the reason of making this any more complicated for
IC drivers. If we don't open the struct gpio_regmap to IC drivers -
then they never need the struct gpio_regmap pointer itself but each IC
driver would need to do some unnecessary function call
(gpio_regmap_get_regmap() in this case). I'd say that would be
unnecessary bloat.
>
> > void *driver_data;
> > };
> > @@ -39,6 +43,43 @@ static unsigned int gpio_regmap_addr(unsigned
> > int
> > addr)
> > return addr;
> > }
> >
> > +static int regmap_gpio_init_valid_mask(struct gpio_chip *gc,
> > + unsigned long *valid_mask,
> > + unsigned int ngpios)
> > +{
> > + struct gpio_regmap *gpio;
> > + void *drvdata;
> > +
> > + gpio = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > +
> > + if (!gpio->init_valid_mask) {
> > + WARN_ON(!gpio->init_valid_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> Why not the following?
>
> if (!gpio->init_valid_mask)
> return 0;
It just feels like an error if regmap_gpio_init_valid_mask() is ever
called by core without having the gpio->init_valid_mask set. Probably
this would mean that the someone has errorneously modified the gpio-
>init_valid_mask set after gpio_regmap registration - whih smells like
a problem. Thus the WARN() sounds like a correct course of action to
me. (I may be wrong though - see below)
> Thus copying the behavior of gpiolib.
I must admit I didn't check how this is implemented in gpiolib. But the
gpio_chip's init_valid_mask should not be set if regmap_gpio_config
does not have valid init_valid_mask pointer at registration. Thus it
smells like an error to me if the GPIO core calls the
regmap_gpio_init_valid_mask() and regmap_gpio has not set the
init_valid_mask pointer. But as I said, I haven't looked in gpiolib for
this so I may be wrong.
>
> > +
> > + drvdata = gpio_regmap_get_drvdata(gpio);
> > +
> > + return gpio->init_valid_mask(gpio->regmap, drvdata,
> > valid_mask,
> > ngpios);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int gpio_regmap_set_config(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned
> > int
> > offset,
> > + unsigned long config)
> > +{
> > + struct gpio_regmap *gpio;
> > + void *drvdata;
> > +
> > + gpio = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> > +
> > + if (!gpio->set_config) {
> > + WARN_ON(!gpio->set_config);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> same here, return -ENOTSUPP.
As above -
if (!gpio->set_config) {
the gpio-core should never call gpio_regmap_set_config() if the
}
Maybe I should add a comment to clarify the WARN() ?
>
> > +
> > + drvdata = gpio_regmap_get_drvdata(gpio);
> > +
> > + return gpio->set_config(gpio->regmap, drvdata, offset, config);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int gpio_regmap_simple_xlate(struct gpio_regmap *gpio,
> > unsigned int base, unsigned int
> > offset,
> > unsigned int *reg, unsigned int
> > *mask)
> > @@ -235,6 +276,8 @@ struct gpio_regmap *gpio_regmap_register(const
> > struct gpio_regmap_config *config
> > gpio->reg_clr_base = config->reg_clr_base;
> > gpio->reg_dir_in_base = config->reg_dir_in_base;
> > gpio->reg_dir_out_base = config->reg_dir_out_base;
> > + gpio->set_config = config->set_config;
> > + gpio->init_valid_mask = config->init_valid_mask;
> >
> > /* if not set, assume there is only one register */
> > if (!gpio->ngpio_per_reg)
> > @@ -253,6 +296,10 @@ struct gpio_regmap *gpio_regmap_register(const
> > struct gpio_regmap_config *config
> > chip->ngpio = config->ngpio;
> > chip->names = config->names;
> > chip->label = config->label ?: dev_name(config->parent);
> > + if (gpio->set_config)
> > + chip->set_config = gpio_regmap_set_config;
> > + if (gpio->init_valid_mask)
> > + chip->init_valid_mask = regmap_gpio_init_valid_mask;
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_OF_GPIO)
> > /* gpiolib will use of_node of the parent if chip->of_node is
> > NULL */
> > @@ -280,6 +327,8 @@ struct gpio_regmap *gpio_regmap_register(const
> > struct gpio_regmap_config *config
> > chip->direction_output = gpio_regmap_direction_output;
> > }
> >
> > + gpio_regmap_set_drvdata(gpio, config->drvdata);
>
> I'm wondering if we need the gpio_regmap_set_drvdata() anymore or if
> we can just drop it entirely.
I wouldn't drop it. I think there _may_ be cases where the drvdata is
set only after the registration. (Just my gut-feeling, I may be wrong
though)
Best Regards
Matti Vaittinen
--
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland
SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND
~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~
Simon says - in Latin please.
"non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit
(Thanks for the translation Simon)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists