linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 6/6] drivers: remoteproc: Add Xilinx r5 remoteproc driver

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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Jun 2022 23:07:01 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     tanmay.shah@...inx.com
Cc:     ben.levinsky@...inx.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        michal.simek@...inx.com,
        openamp-system-reference@...ts.openampproject.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/6] drivers: remoteproc: Add Xilinx r5 remoteproc
 driver

Hi,

should there be a v9, a nitpick below.

Le 02/06/2022 à 22:38, Tanmay Shah a écrit :
> This driver enables r5f dual core Real time Processing Unit subsystem
> available on Xilinx Zynq Ultrascale MPSoC Platform. RPU subsystem
> (cluster) can be configured in different modes e.g. split mode in which
> two r5f cores work independent of each other and lock-step mode in which
> both r5f cores execute same code clock-for-clock and notify if the
> result is different.
> 
> The Xilinx r5 Remoteproc Driver boots the RPU cores via calls to the Xilinx
> Platform Management Unit that handles the R5 configuration, memory access
> and R5 lifecycle management. The interface to this manager is done in this
> driver via zynqmp_pm_* function calls.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@...lic.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
> 

[...]

> +static void zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit(void *data)
> +{
> +	struct platform_device *pdev = (struct platform_device *)data;
> +	struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	cluster = (struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *)platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +	if (!cluster)
> +		return;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) {
> +		zynqmp_r5_core_exit(cluster->r5_cores[i]);
> +		cluster->r5_cores[i] = NULL;
> +	}
> +
> +	kfree(cluster->r5_cores);
> +	kfree(cluster);

why not remove this kfree(cluster) here...

> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe()
> + *
> + * @pdev: domain platform device for R5 cluster
> + *
> + * called when driver is probed, for each R5 core specified in DT,
> + * setup as needed to do remoteproc-related operations
> + *
> + * Return: 0 for success, negative value for failure.
> + */
> +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +
> +	cluster = kzalloc(sizeof(*cluster), GFP_KERNEL);

... devm_kzalloc() here...

> +	if (!cluster)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	cluster->dev = dev;
> +
> +	ret = devm_of_platform_populate(dev);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to populate platform dev\n");
> +		kfree(cluster);
> +		return ret;

and return dev_err_probe() here (without the kfree)?
Would'nt it be cleaner?

just my 2c

CJ

> +	}
> +
> +	/* wire in so each core can be cleaned up at driver remove */
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cluster);
> +
> +	ret = zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(cluster);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit(pdev);
> +		dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Invalid r5f subsystem device tree\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit, pdev);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

[...]