linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/25] bus: mhi: ep: Add support for registering MHI endpoint client drivers

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: <c0b89a9e-156c-c56a-c387-5d9ee2c83871@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:50:07 -0600
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     mhi@...ts.linux.dev, quic_hemantk@...cinc.com,
        quic_bbhatt@...cinc.com, quic_jhugo@...cinc.com,
        vinod.koul@...aro.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org, quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com,
        quic_cang@...cinc.com, quic_skananth@...cinc.com,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/25] bus: mhi: ep: Add support for registering MHI
 endpoint client drivers

On 2/17/22 4:20 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 02:02:50PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +static int mhi_ep_driver_remove(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct mhi_ep_device *mhi_dev = to_mhi_ep_device(dev);
>>> +	struct mhi_ep_driver *mhi_drv = to_mhi_ep_driver(dev->driver);
>>> +	struct mhi_result result = {};
>>> +	struct mhi_ep_chan *mhi_chan;
>>> +	int dir;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Skip if it is a controller device */
>>> +	if (mhi_dev->dev_type == MHI_DEVICE_CONTROLLER)
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +
>>
>> It would be my preference to encapsulate the body of the
>> following loop into a called function, then call that once
>> for the UL channel and once for the DL channel.
>>
> 
> This follows the host stack, so I'd like to keep it the same.

I think you should change both, but I'll leave that up to you.

>>> +	/* Disconnect the channels associated with the driver */
>>> +	for (dir = 0; dir < 2; dir++) {
>>> +		mhi_chan = dir ? mhi_dev->ul_chan : mhi_dev->dl_chan;
>>> +
>>> +		if (!mhi_chan)
>>> +			continue;
>>> +
>>> +		mutex_lock(&mhi_chan->lock);
>>> +		/* Send channel disconnect status to the client driver */
>>> +		if (mhi_chan->xfer_cb) {
>>> +			result.transaction_status = -ENOTCONN;
>>> +			result.bytes_xferd = 0;
>>> +			mhi_chan->xfer_cb(mhi_chan->mhi_dev, &result);
>>
>> It appears the result is ignored here.  If so, can we
>> define the xfer_cb() function so that a NULL pointer may
>> be supplied by the caller in cases like this?
>>
> 
> result is not ignored, only the bytes_xfered. "transaction_status" will
> be used by the client drivers for error handling.

Sorry, I was looking at the code *after* the call, and was
ignoring that it was information being passed in...  My
mistake.

>>> +		}
>>> +
>>> +		/* Set channel state to DISABLED */
>>
>> That comment is a little tautological.  Just omit it.
>>
>>> +		mhi_chan->state = MHI_CH_STATE_DISABLED;
>>> +		mhi_chan->xfer_cb = NULL;
>>> +		mutex_unlock(&mhi_chan->lock);
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	/* Remove the client driver now */
>>> +	mhi_drv->remove(mhi_dev);
>>> +
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +struct mhi_ep_driver {
>>> +	const struct mhi_device_id *id_table;
>>> +	struct device_driver driver;
>>> +	int (*probe)(struct mhi_ep_device *mhi_ep,
>>> +		     const struct mhi_device_id *id);
>>> +	void (*remove)(struct mhi_ep_device *mhi_ep);
>>
>> I get confused by the "ul" versus "dl" naming scheme here.
>> Is "ul" from the perspective of the host, meaning upload
>> is from the host toward the WWAN network (and therefore
>> toward the SDX AP), and download is from the WWAN toward
>> the host?  Somewhere this should be stated clearly in
>> comments; maybe I just missed it.
>>
> 
> Yes UL and DL are as per host context. I didn't state this explicitly
> since this is the MHI host stack behaviour but I'll add a comment for
> clarity

Sounds good, thanks.

					-Alex

> 
> Thanks,
> Mani