linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: ralink: make system controller node a reset provider

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMhs-H_qb=goRmfhO1P+mt_NKhJFuJgH6a483-6Wk8M9MA1cJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:02:12 +0200
From:   Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: ralink: make system controller node a reset provider

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the review. Comments below.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:29 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 08:12:03AM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > @@ -398,6 +401,76 @@ static void __init mt7621_clk_init(struct device_node *node)
> >  }
> >  CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(mt7621_clk, "mediatek,mt7621-sysc", mt7621_clk_init);
> >
> > +struct mt7621_rst {
> > +     struct reset_controller_dev rcdev;
> > +     struct regmap *sysc;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static inline struct mt7621_rst *to_mt7621_rst(struct reset_controller_dev *dev)
>
> No need to mark this as inline.  The compiler should do it automatically
> or it will ignore the inline.

Ok, I have other functions to_* with the same inline syntax, that's
why I have added also here. I think I will maintain it to be coherent
and can be removed afterwards with another patch not belonging to this
series.

>
> > +{
> > +     return container_of(dev, struct mt7621_rst, rcdev);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mt7621_assert_device(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> > +                             unsigned long id)
> > +{
> > +     struct mt7621_rst *data = to_mt7621_rst(rcdev);
> > +     struct regmap *sysc = data->sysc;
> > +
> > +     if (id == MT7621_RST_SYS)
> > +             return -1;
>
> Please, return proper error codes.

Current code at 'reset.c' of the arch was returning -1 in this case. I
guess it is better to change it to -EINVAL.

>
> > +
> > +     return regmap_update_bits(sysc, SYSC_REG_RESET_CTRL, BIT(id), BIT(id));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mt7621_deassert_device(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> > +                               unsigned long id)
> > +{
> > +     struct mt7621_rst *data = to_mt7621_rst(rcdev);
> > +     struct regmap *sysc = data->sysc;
> > +
> > +     if (id == MT7621_RST_SYS)
> > +             return -1;
>
> Here too.

Will change to -EINVAL.

>
> > +
> > +     return regmap_update_bits(sysc, SYSC_REG_RESET_CTRL, BIT(id), 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mt7621_reset_device(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
> > +                            unsigned long id)
> > +{
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     ret = mt7621_assert_device(rcdev, id);
> > +     if (ret < 0)
> > +             return ret;
> > +
> > +     return mt7621_deassert_device(rcdev, id);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct reset_control_ops reset_ops = {
> > +     .reset = mt7621_reset_device,
> > +     .assert = mt7621_assert_device,
> > +     .deassert = mt7621_deassert_device
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int mt7621_reset_init(struct device *dev, struct regmap *sysc)
> > +{
> > +     struct mt7621_rst *rst_data;
> > +
> > +     rst_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*rst_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>
>
> Can we use devm_ to allocate this or do we need to clean up if
> devm_reset_controller_register() fails?  Also a free in the release
> function I suppose.  (Please, use devm_).

True, yes we can use devm_ for this. Will change it, thanks.

>
>
> > +     if (!rst_data)
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +     rst_data->sysc = sysc;
> > +     rst_data->rcdev.ops = &reset_ops;
> > +     rst_data->rcdev.owner = THIS_MODULE;
> > +     rst_data->rcdev.nr_resets = 32;
> > +     rst_data->rcdev.of_reset_n_cells = 1;
> > +     rst_data->rcdev.of_node = dev_of_node(dev);
> > +
> > +     return devm_reset_controller_register(dev, &rst_data->rcdev);
> > +}
>
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
I will properly take into account your comments and send v2.

Thanks,
     Sergio Paracuellos