| 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: <689539b24f9dc57ec0bfc92fdd9d3464@walle.cc>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:22:19 +0200
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com
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
Am 2021-05-20 14:00, schrieb Matti Vaittinen:
> On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 13:42 +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> 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.
If there is ever the need of additional parameters, you'll have to
modify that parameter list. Otherwise you'll just have to add a new
function. Thus might be more future proof.
But I won't object to it.
>> > 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.
Oh, I missed that you only set it when it is set in the
gpio_regmap_config. Thus, I'd say drop it entirely? It is only within
this module where things might go 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)
Ok, but as you already mentioned on IRC, it could be a bit of a trap
because it might already be used after gpiochip_add_data() and thus
be NULL if not provided by gpio_regmap_config().
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists