| 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: <CA+V-a8uqoR3tJrfGAR-bTz23HR0=63kDd9TYuPRPesc8LWBT0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:44 +0100
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] pinctrl: renesas: pinctrl-rzg2l: Add IRQ domain to
handle GPIO interrupt
Hi Geert,
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:14 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 8:13 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:56 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:53 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 7:36 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > > > <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:39 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:32 PM Lad Prabhakar
> > > > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Add IRQ domian to RZ/G2L pinctrl driver to handle GPIO interrupt.
> > > > > > > > GPIO0-GPIO122 pins can be used as IRQ lines but only 32 pins can be
> > > > > > > > used as IRQ lines at given time. Selection of pins as IRQ lines
> > > > > > > > is handled by IA55 (which is the IRQC block) which sits in between the
> > > > > > > > GPIO and GIC.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > static int rzg2l_gpio_register(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > struct device_node *np = pctrl->dev->of_node;
> > > > > > > > struct gpio_chip *chip = &pctrl->gpio_chip;
> > > > > > > > const char *name = dev_name(pctrl->dev);
> > > > > > > > + struct irq_domain *parent_domain;
> > > > > > > > struct of_phandle_args of_args;
> > > > > > > > + struct device_node *parent_np;
> > > > > > > > + struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
> > > > > > > > int ret;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + parent_np = of_irq_find_parent(np);
> > > > > > > > + if (!parent_np)
> > > > > > > > + return -ENXIO;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent_np);
> > > > > > > > + of_node_put(parent_np);
> > > > > > > > + if (!parent_domain)
> > > > > > > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > ret = of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(np, "gpio-ranges", 3, 0, &of_args);
> > > > > > > > if (ret) {
> > > > > > > > dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Unable to parse gpio-ranges\n");
> > > > > > > > @@ -1138,6 +1330,15 @@ static int rzg2l_gpio_register(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl)
> > > > > > > > chip->base = -1;
> > > > > > > > chip->ngpio = of_args.args[2];
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + girq = &chip->irq;
> > > > > > > > + girq->chip = &rzg2l_gpio_irqchip;
> > > > > > > > + girq->fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(np);
> > > > > > > > + girq->parent_domain = parent_domain;
> > > > > > > > + girq->child_to_parent_hwirq = rzg2l_gpio_child_to_parent_hwirq;
> > > > > > > > + girq->populate_parent_alloc_arg = rzg2l_gpio_populate_parent_fwspec;
> > > > > > > > + girq->child_irq_domain_ops.free = rzg2l_gpio_irq_domain_free;
> > > > > > > > + girq->ngirq = RZG2L_TINT_MAX_INTERRUPT;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think you need to provide a .init_valid_mask() callback, as
> > > > > > > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() relies on that for destroying interrupts.
> > > > > > Are you suggesting the callback to avoid looping through all the GPIO pins?
> > > > >
> > > > > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() does:
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Remove all IRQ mappings and delete the domain */
> > > > > if (gc->irq.domain) {
> > > > > unsigned int irq;
> > > > >
> > > > > for (offset = 0; offset < gc->ngpio; offset++) {
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > if (!gpiochip_irqchip_irq_valid(gc, offset))
> > > > > continue;
> > > > >
> > > > > irq = irq_find_mapping(gc->irq.domain, offset);
> > > > > irq_dispose_mapping(irq);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > irq_domain_remove(gc->irq.domain);
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > The main thing is not about avoiding to loop through all GPIO pins,
> > > > > but to avoid irq_{find,dispose}_mapping() doing the wrong thing.
> > > > So in our case if we don't implement valid masks, that would mean all
> > > > the pins are valid. irq_find_mapping() would return 0 if no mapping is
> > > > found to the corresponding offset and irq_dispose_mapping() would
> > > > simply return back without doing anything if virq == 0.(In this patch
> > > > rzg2l_gpio_free() does call irq_{find,dispose}_mapping())
> > >
> > > But "offset" is a number from the GPIO offset space (0-122), while
> >
> > The "offset" reported by kernel is 120-511:
>
> Offsets 120-511 are global GPIO numbers, i.e. starting from
> gpio_chip.base.
> The loop in gpiochip_irqchip_remove() uses local GPIO numbers,
> starting from zero.
> So these offsets are not the same.
>
My bad, offsets will be raging from 0 - 392
> Likewise, I believe the "offset" passed to irq_find_mapping() is an
> irq number (hwirq) local to the domain, i.e. also starting at 0.
> And it must be smaller than the size (32) passed to
> irq_domain_create_hierarchy().
>
Since in the current implementation, offset is used as hwirq, the
irq_find_mapping() returned the correct virqs.
> When passed a non-zero size, irq_domain_create_hierarchy()
> calls into __irq_domain_add(), with size == hwirq_max == 32:
>
> /**
> * __irq_domain_add() - Allocate a new irq_domain data structure
> * @fwnode: firmware node for the interrupt controller
> * @size: Size of linear map; 0 for radix mapping only
> * @hwirq_max: Maximum number of interrupts supported by controller
> * @direct_max: Maximum value of direct maps; Use ~0 for no limit; 0 for no
> * direct mapping
> * @ops: domain callbacks
> * @host_data: Controller private data pointer
> *
> * Allocates and initializes an irq_domain structure.
> * Returns pointer to IRQ domain, or NULL on failure.
> */
> struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> unsigned int size,
> irq_hw_number_t hwirq_max, int
> direct_max,
> const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
> void *host_data)
>
I have now updated the code to have hwirq's ranging from 0-31 and
implemented the child_offset_to_irq() callback.
> > > > > But we do need to handle the (possible) mismatch between GPIO
> > > > > offset (index) and IRQ offset in the above code.
> > > > >
> > > > Agreed, do you see any possibility of the mismatch I have missed?
> > >
> > > gpiochip_to_irq():
> > >
> > > if (irq_domain_is_hierarchy(domain)) {
> > > struct irq_fwspec spec;
> > >
> > > spec.fwnode = domain->fwnode;
> > > spec.param_count = 2;
> > > spec.param[0] = gc->irq.child_offset_to_irq(gc, offset);
> > > spec.param[1] = IRQ_TYPE_NONE;
> > >
> > > return irq_create_fwspec_mapping(&spec);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Same here: in the absence of a child_offset_to_irq() callback,
> > > the default gpiochip_child_offset_to_irq_noop() will be used,
> > > assuming an identity mapping between GPIO numbers and IRQ
> > > numbers.
> > >
> > Agreed, gpiochip_child_offset_to_irq_noop will return the "offset",
> > but irq_create_fwspec_mapping() in gpiochip_to_irq() will return the
> > virq number which will not be equal to the offset.
>
> Shouldn't spec.param[0] be in the range 0-31, as 32 is the size of
> the IRQ domain allocated?
>
Right agreed, but looks like GPIO core is lenient. I have created a
patch to do some checking in the GPIO core.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists