linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 08/24] wfx: add bus

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: <CAPDyKFoMQG-GOfRsMk21Awk21cxVN6bMe9n8YCh8xHbg7j1Rgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:51:16 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Jerome Pouiller <Jerome.Pouiller@...abs.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 08/24] wfx: add bus_sdio.c

[...]

> +static const struct of_device_id wfx_sdio_of_match[] = {
> +       { .compatible = "silabs,wf200",    .data = &pdata_wf200 },
> +       { .compatible = "silabs,brd4001a", .data = &pdata_brd4001a },
> +       { .compatible = "silabs,brd8022a", .data = &pdata_brd8022a },
> +       { .compatible = "silabs,brd8023a", .data = &pdata_brd8023a },
> +       { .compatible = "silabs,wfx-sdio", .data = &pdata_wfx_sdio },
> +       { },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, wfx_sdio_of_match);
> +
> +static int wfx_sdio_probe(struct sdio_func *func, const struct sdio_device_id *id)
> +{
> +       const struct wfx_platform_data *pdata = of_device_get_match_data(&func->dev);
> +       struct device_node *np = func->dev.of_node;
> +       struct wfx_sdio_priv *bus;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       if (func->num != 1) {
> +               dev_err(&func->dev, "SDIO function number is %d while it should always be 1 (unsupported chip?)\n",
> +                       func->num);
> +               return -ENODEV;
> +       }
> +
> +       if (!pdata) {
> +               dev_warn(&func->dev, "no compatible device found in DT\n");
> +               return -ENODEV;
> +       }
> +
> +       bus = devm_kzalloc(&func->dev, sizeof(*bus), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!bus)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       bus->func = func;
> +       bus->of_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
> +       sdio_set_drvdata(func, bus);
> +       func->card->quirks |= MMC_QUIRK_LENIENT_FN0 |
> +                             MMC_QUIRK_BLKSZ_FOR_BYTE_MODE |
> +                             MMC_QUIRK_BROKEN_BYTE_MODE_512;

This should not be needed any more, right?

> +
> +       sdio_claim_host(func);
> +       ret = sdio_enable_func(func);
> +       /* Block of 64 bytes is more efficient than 512B for frame sizes < 4k */
> +       sdio_set_block_size(func, 64);
> +       sdio_release_host(func);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       bus->core = wfx_init_common(&func->dev, pdata, &wfx_sdio_hwbus_ops, bus);
> +       if (!bus->core) {
> +               ret = -EIO;
> +               goto sdio_release;
> +       }
> +
> +       ret = wfx_probe(bus->core);
> +       if (ret)
> +               goto sdio_release;
> +
> +       return 0;
> +
> +sdio_release:
> +       sdio_claim_host(func);
> +       sdio_disable_func(func);
> +       sdio_release_host(func);
> +       return ret;
> +}

[...]

Other than the above, this looks good to me!


Kind regards
Uffe